KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No. 140/2016 registered at the Woman Police Station, Sriganganagar.

(2.) Learned Counsel Shri Nishant Bora representing the petitioners vehemently and fervently urges that the main allegations of the complainant are attributed to the accused Pawan Kumar being her husband. So far as the petitioners Krishna Lal, Sharda Devi and Kamlesh being the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of complainant are concerned, the allegations attributed to them are absolutely vague and unconvincing. Shri Bora urges that the spouses i.e. the complainant Smt.Manisha and the accused Pawan Kumar never resided at Sri Ganganagar and, therefore, there was no occasion for the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the sister-in-law to have treated her with cruelty or to have meted out harassment to her on account of demand of dowry etc. He further submits that the petitioner Kamlesh, being sister-in-law of the complainant was employed at Central Cooperative Bank, Dausa and thus, her implication in this case is totally unjustified. He further submits that the admitted allegations of the complainant as set out in the FIR indicate that she was harassed on account of demand of dowry at Jaipur and thus, the Police at Sri Ganganagar has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. He relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Neelu Chopra & Anr. Vs. Bharti, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 in support of the contentions and implored the Court to accept the Misc. Petition and quash the impugned FIR.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Rajendra Charan, Advocate representing the State and the complainant respectively vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' Counsel. They urged that the petitioner No. 1 Krishan Lal is a Private Assistant in the District Court, Sri Ganganagar. There are direct allegations of the complainant that soon after her marriage with Pawan Kumar, when she reached at the matrimonial home, all the accused-persons taunted her regarding the quality and quantity of the dowry articles. The harassment continued thereafter also. Not only this, when the complainant was living with her husband at Jaipur, she was continuously harassed by the accused persons. The other three accused would come to Jaipur and treat her with cruelty on regular basis. They, therefore, submit that the matter is not such which requires interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.