AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.100/2016 dated 07.06.2016 registered at
Police Station Mahila Thana(South), Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, and 354 I.P.C.
On 08.06.2009 respondent No.2 complainant as per Hindu Customs & Rites was married with petitioner No.1 Mukut Bihari Gupta. Smt. Sunita
complainant respondent No.2 has alleged in the FIR that during subsistence of marriage, she was subjected to physical and mentally cruelty on
account of demand of dowry. She further alleged that petitioner No.6 made an attempt to outrage her modesty.
I have heard ld. counsel appearing for the petitioners, ld. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and ld. counsel appearing for the complainant.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that during investigation offence under Section 354 IPC against petitioner No.6 has been omitted, as
allegation regarding an attempt to outrage modesty by petitioner No.6 was not found truthful.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and going through the contents of the impugned F.I.R., it is apparent that specific
allegations of demand of dowry and harassment have been levelled against the petitioners Nos.1 to 3. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed,
qua petitioner No.1 Mukut Bihari Gupta husband, petitioner No.2 Hanuman Sahai Gupta father in law and petitioner No.3 Smt. Kanta mother in law.
Petitioner No.4 Giriraj Prasad is a elder brother of the husband of the complainant(Jeth), petitioner No.5 Smt. Anita is a sister of husband of the
complainant(Nanad) and petitioner No.6 is son of the uncle of the husband of the complainant(Chacha’s son).
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported
in A.I.R. 2010 Supreme Court 3363 to contend that provisions pertaining to matrimonial offences are being misused and complainant by widening the
net has involved all family members, even son of uncle has not been spared and allegations to invoke Section 354 IPC have been found not truthful by
the Investigating Agency.
From perusal of impugned F.I.R. it is apparent that omnibus, general and vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioners Nos.4 to 6
regarding demand of dowry and infliction of mental and physical cruelty.
Taking into account the nature of allegations, relationship of petitioners Nos.4 to 6 with complainant/respondent No.2 and observations made by the
Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra), the present petition is accepted, qua petitioners Nos.4 to 6 and the impugned F.I.R., qua them is
quashed.
Furthermore, taking into consideration the age and relationship of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, their personal appearance before the trial Court is exempted,
subject to following conditions :-
“A. That the petitioner Nos.2 and3 shall file an undertaking that they shall appear before the ld. trial Court at the time of framing of the charges,
recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of delivery of the judgment.
B.        That the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall further state in theundertaking that the evidence of the witnesses recorded in their
absence but in the presence of their Counsel shall be binding upon them.
C.        That in the undertaking, so filed they shall state that they shallappear before the ld. Court below as and when called upon to do
so.
D.       That the upon appearance of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the trial Court shall accept personal bail bonds and bonds to be submitted
by the sureties of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and same shall enure during the pendency of the trial.â€