ANURAG TADA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 111/2021 registered at Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City (East) for offence under Ss. 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 gave a written report at Mahila Police Station (East), Jodhpur to the effect that his daughter Saroj is married to Anurag Tada on 14/2/2009. At the time of marriage, the complainant on demand, gave dowry including jewellery and cash. It is alleged that after marriage, Anuraj took his daughter to Kualalampur, Malaysia. In the year 2012, a daughter was born out of the wedlock but soon thereafter, the accused persons started harassing his daughter demanding dowry. After pacification, the complainant gave 12 tolas of gold jewellery. Thereafter, Anurag took his daughter back to Malaysia but started ill treatment and used to confine her in a room. Thereafter, in the year 2016, his daughter came back to India and gave birth to baby boy. In the month of October, 2016, his daughter went to Malaysia alongwith her both kids but the behaviour of Anurag did not change and continued his harassment and even tried to kill her due to which she had to be hospitalised. Thereafter, Anurag dropped his daughter and children at Jodhpur and went back and demanded Rs.5.00 lacs as dowry. The police registered the case and investigation commenced.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in the first instance submits that a perusal of the FIR would go to show that omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the accused that they demanded dowry and harassed the complainant's daughter Saroj. the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and daughter of complainant took place in the year 2009 and thereafter, the petitioner no.1 and Saroj went to Malayasia and have been happily living in Malaysia. It is argued that the petitioners never demanded any dowry and whatever dowry was given as per customs, it is with the complainant's daughter. It is further argued that the harassment and demand of dowry has been alleged to be made by the petitioner no.1 at Malaysia, therefore, the FIR lodged by the complainant at Jodhpur against all the petitioners is without jurisdiction. It is further argued that the petitioner no.1 had deposited a total sum of Rs.1,32,28,032.00 in the NRI account of complainant's daughter, out of which Rs.65.00 lacs have been withdrawn by the complaint without consent of the petitioner no.1. Therefore, there is no question of demand of dowry and the complainant only with a view to pressurize the petitioners, has lodged this false FIR against the petitioners. Even as per the factual report submitted by the police before this Court dtd. 6/12/2022, no offence is made out against the petitioners No.2 and 3 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law but now the Investigating officer has issued notice under Sec. 41A Cr.P.C against the petitioners No.2 and 3 also and no new material has come up to implicate the petitioners no.2 and 3. Therefore, the FIR may be quashed against the petitioners.