Lakhmi Chand and Others vs The State of Rajasthan and Another

Mahesh Chandra Sharma

This criminal misc. petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of first information report No. 105/11 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Bharatpur. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR No. 105/11 came to be registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur lodged by informant respondent No. 2 wherein it has been alleged that she married to Virendra Kumar, petitioner No. 3 on 28.11.2004. In the marriage, her father invested about Rs. 6,14,000/- which includes the dowry items like jewellery, in addition to that Rs. 3,51,251/- were also paid in cash. When she went to matrimonial home, her in-laws did not talk twice and on third time the accused persons disclosed that as her father has not given the appropriate dowry, her grand father-in- law Kurna Ram had commented that his grand son is serving in the Air Force but his marriage has been solemnized like as a fourth class employee. Unless she brings rupees two lacs and a motor cycle, the in-laws would not keep her at the matrimonial home. She conveyed that her father is a simple agriculturist and he does not have capacity to give more dowry. She was subjected for beating and threatened that unless she brings more dowry, she will not be allowed to reside in the matrimonial home. She was thrown out of the house. She demanded her Stridhan but the accused persons have refused to return it back.

It has been further alleged that informant had faced serious financial problem, and hence she had to file a case for maintenance u/s 125 Cr. P.C. at Bharatpur which was subsequently transferred to the court of ACJM, Kumher.

It was further alleged that way back in the year 2006 itself the petitioner No. 1 husband of informant moved a divorce petition before the learned District Judge, Alwar u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which was contested by the informant where she has denied the averments made in the divorce petition. The learned District Juge, Alwar vide its judgment dated 23.5.2011 rejected the divorce petition.

Feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 23.5.2011, petitioner No. 1 has preferred a misc. appeal before this Court and same is pending for adjudication.

Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. RK Mathur has contended that they have not demanded any dowry from the complainant respondent but they have lodged the present FIR.

On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Karan Pal Singh appearing for the respondent No. 2 has contended that accused petitioners are continuously committing the cruelty against the respondent. Not only this, they have alleged some false allegations against the respondent and moved divorce petition before the learned District Judge, Alwar and same has been dismissed after considering each and every aspect of the allegations made by the husband of the respondent.

Mr. Karan Pal Singh has further drawn attention of this Court towards the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar in its order dated 23.5.2011 passed on the application filed u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which is reproduced as under:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. I do not think it proper to quash the first information report No. 105/11 registered at Mahila Thana, Bharatpur.

However, in the interest of justice, I hereby direct the investigating officer to investigate the matter fairly, properly and impartially and thereafter shall submit progress report before the court concerned.

In view of above, the petition is disposed of. Since the petition itself has been disposed of, the stay application stand disposed of.