SUDHAKAR BAHAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal miscellaneous petition, petitioners want to quash FIR bearing No.89/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (South) for the offence punishable under Sec. 498A and 406 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of FIR are as under:- Respondent No.2 had lodged present FIR at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (South) in which she stated that marriage was solemnized on 19/2/2011 at Bundi with petitioner No.1. After marriage, she had gone to Bikaner, where petitioner as well as relatives of the petitioner mainly brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law used to torture for want of dowry but due to education and social phenomena, she did not lodged any complaint. She wanted to save her matrimonial life. She wants to fulfill her marital obligation but petitioners and their family members used to torture her physically and mentally. Petitioner No.1 had filed divorce petition on 29/4/2014. Endeavor of the respondent to save matrimonial life, respondent was thrown out of house on 25/11/2013 and they had taken her dowry article and had not returned till today.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present FIR was lodged after a delay of more than seven years with mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that allegation levelled in the FIR are omnibus in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent No.2 had left matrimonial home without any cause on 31/12/2011 and had not fulfilled her matrimonial obligations. After that, petitioner No.1 had filed divorce petition on 29/4/2014 on the ground of desertion. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that divorce petition was on the verge of deciding at that time, respondent No.2 had lodged the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent had not alleged a single word regarding demand of dowry in her reply of divorce petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent No.2 has not uttered a single word regarding demand of dowry in her petition under Sec. 24 Hindu Marriage Act as well as petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 had not given any evidence regarding demand of dowry in her statement before the Family Court in divorce proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 has changed her version with each new legal proceedings and created new versions in contradiction of her earlier version. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent No.2 wants to harass and humiliate.