Sunil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Petitioners, father and son, are before this court seeking indulgence for quashing of an FIR No. 63/2023, dated 08.05.2023, registered at Police Station Chamu, Jodhpur Rural, for offenses under Sections 341, 451, 452, 354, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with all consequential proceedings.

Briefly, the relevant facts are that Respondent No. 2, the complainant, lodged a private complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balesar, Jodhpur, alleging that on 12.09.2022, the petitioners attempted to encroach upon her house and assaulted her father-in-law, who was sitting outside the house. When the complainant intervened, she too was assaulted, and her modesty was outraged. The learned Magistrate, exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., forwarded the complaint to the concerned police station, leading to the registration of the FIR.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the case file and the impugned FIR.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant is the sister-in-law of the petitioner no.1. Petitioner No.2 is father of the petitioner no.1. Earlier, an FIR was lodged by the complainant's husband (the petitioner no.1's real brother), in which the police submitted a negative final report. Having failed in his earlier attempt, the brother of petitioner No.1 (and son of petitioner No.2) is now using his wife as weapon by making wild allegations to inter-alia invoke Section 354 of IPC.

4.1. He also argues that, in fact, there is a pre existing civil dispute between the parties as a revenue suit is already pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balesar. Therefore, the FIR in question should be quashed.

Having heard and after reviewing the FIR, it appears that the petitioner is indeed the brother-in-law of the complainant. Moreover, it is borne out that revenue suit No. 204/2022 is pending between the parties qua a dispute over family property.

In light of the facts of case herein, the possibility of the instant FIR being entirely motivated cannot be ruled out. This is further supported by the specific fact that a similar FIR was previously registered by the complainant’s husband, alleging theft of jewelry by the petitioner No.1. Said FIR was later closed with a negative final report filed by the police in favour of petitioner No.1.

In any case, I am inclined to agree with arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above.

The instant FIR seems to be a retaliatory move. The sister-in-law of the petitioner No.1 has, this time made a rather unpalatable allegation, apart from other equally unbelievable and absurd allegations, that a water pump/ motor has been stolen by the petitioner. This, on the face of it seems absurd, given the relationship of the parties.

Pertinently, it seems that when the police officials, realizing that the second complaint is also motivated, declined to register the FIR, the complainant-respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 156 Cr.P.C. and managed to convince, perhaps by misleading the learned Magistrate, to get an order directing the police officials to register the FIR.

Having seen the allegations of the FIR in the background of the factual narrative as noted hereinabove, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate clearly committed serious irregularity in law by passing the order dated 29.03.2023 to direct registration of the FIR. Consequently, the FIR in question since ex-facie does not make out any case of criminal culpability qua the petitioners, has to be necessarily set aside. It is so ordered.

The petition is, thus, allowed. The FIR No.63/2023, dated 08.05.2023, registered at P.S. Chamu, Jodhpur Rural and consequential proceedings are quashed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.