Priyanka vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner complainant has approached this court by way of the instant revision petition under Section 397 and 401 CrPC for assailing the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Misc. Case No.58/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 (2) CrPC seeking cancellation of bail granted to the private respondents by the trial court was rejected.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Rajendra Charan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, and have gone through the impugned order.

On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that anticipatory bail was granted to the private respondents by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet on 12.09.2014 against them for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, whereafter the accused appeared in the trial court and were enlarged on regular bail. The District Court at Haridwar passed an order under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the respondent accused Lokesh, but rather than going to live with her husband, the petitioner complainant lodged the report under Section 498-A, 406 and 354 IPC, in which, charge-sheet was filed by the police as above. During the course of the transfer petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the restitution proceedings, the petitioner complainant was sent to live with her husband respondent Lokesh. Thus, complying with the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, Mr. Lokesh took Priyanka with him, but she did not accept resumption of cohabitation and returned to Rajasthan, where she is admittedly living since 23.11.2015. The respondents reside at Haridwar. The complainant lodged yet another FIR No.294/2015 against the respondents at the Police Station Mahila Thana Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 323, 344, 383, 386 and 498-A IPC, after investigation whereof, the Investigating Officer filed a negative final report.

It seems that the petitioner's entire endeavour has been to somehow or the other harass and humiliate the respondents. In this view of the matter, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting cancellation of bail granted to the respondents. Finding no infirmity or illegality whatsoever in the impugned order, I am not inclined to entertain the instant revision, which is dismissed as being devoid of merit.