GOPAL KRISHANA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the FIR No. 365 of 2013 registered at Police Station Lalsot District Dausa for the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 376, 511, 354 and 342 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The brief and relevant facts giving rise to this criminal writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 Gopal Krishna is an Electrical Engineer working in BSNL Department. He was initially appointed as JTO Bundi in BSNL and in Dec. 2008 promoted as Deputy Manager and transferred to Delhi. The marriage of the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with the complainant, who is respondent No. 2 herein on 27-4-2003 as per Hindu rites. It has been alleged in the writ petition that there was no demand of dowry by the petitioners and petitioners 2 and 3 needed a good bride for their son. Due to wedlock one son Master Kushal born on 30-3-2004 and daughter was born on 4-10-2011. It is alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 lost his valuable 11 years only in accommodation whereas behaviour of the complainant was deteriorated day to day. The complainant was taken by her father and brothers onl5-9-2013 in cheerful along with the daughter and at that time there was no controversy but she on misguidance left her matrimonial house and without considering the spirit of matrimonial life and only to make pressure upon petitioners for her unreasonable desire, lodged a false and concocted FIR No. 365/ 2013 at Police Station Lalsot District Dausa for the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 376, 511, 354 and 342 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the complainant misused the beneficiary provisions of Section 498A, IPC, lodged the false FIR due to ulterior motive and false allegations levelled against the petitioners 2 and 3 who are senior citizens and suffering from several ailments. The petitioner No. 2 is a reputed person of the area and running his cloth store and during the whole matrimonial period of 10-11 years only visited 3-4 times at posting place of petitioner No. 1 and behaved complainant as a daughter but she only due to ulterior motive cooked a false story and levelled false allegations even to the extent of Sections 376/511, IPC. It is further alleged that all the false allegations levelled in the FIR are either taken place at Bundi or Delhi or Gangapurcity and no incident was taken place at Lalsot, District Dausa but complainant malafidely and only to influence local police lodged false fabricated and concocted FIR.

(3.) Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners has contended that the FIR lodged by the complainant is false, frivolous and fabricated and hence it is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is alleged by the counsel that there was no demand of dowry by the petitioners and after the marriage the petitioner paid great respect to complainant and also she was sub-. jected to good care. The petitioner kept the complainant with him on posting locations but she under misguidance of her family misbehaved with him and without informing him left matrimonial home. It is further argued that the complainant made a false and frivolous allegations of demand of payment of 3 lakhs. The petitioner got promotion in Dec. 2008 hence the whole story about the demand in Sept. 2008 is falsify. In relation to fixed deposit of Rs. 1,40,000/- it has been argued that the said FD was given in marriage to the complainant by her father and initially it was for 5 1/2 years, on maturity amount of FD was about 1.4 lakhs withdrew from post office and then a fresh fixed deposit was prepared by their own wishes in the name of complainant. No cause of action arose at Lalsot and as per FIR all false allegations were taken place at Bundi or Delhi or Gangapurcity but complainant malafidely lodged an FIR at Lalsot, which has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the controversy. Reliance has been placed on Y. Abrahama Ajith v. Inspector of Police, Chennai, 2004 AIR(SC) 4286Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 AIR(SC) 1989 Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan., 2008 AIR(SC) 2666 Reliance on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 AIR(SC) 3363 in relation to the argument that the complaint has been filed only to create undue pressure upon the petitioner and falsely implicated the old parents of petitioner. Further reliance has been placed on the Apex Court judgments in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2013 AIR(SC) 181 and Chandralekha and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2013 AIR(SC)(Cri) 1643. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the FIR lodged against the petitioners may be quashed and set aside.