SHOKAT ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the FIR No. 83/2014 dated 06.11.2014 of Police Station, Mahila, District Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC qua the petitioner.

(2.) The complainant-respondent No. 2 has lodged the impugned FIR while claiming that her marriage was solemnized on 02.04.2002 at village Ghanghu Tehsil and District Churu with Mohammed Ismail S/o. Mohammed Abbas. At the time of her marriage, number of gold ornaments were given by her father weighing about 62 Tolas and gold ornaments weighing 23 Tolas by her in-laws were also given. It is further alleged that the other dowry items such as Utensils, Television, Double Bed, Refrigerator, Sofa Set, Dining Table, Washing Machine etc. were also given to her and all the said dowry items along with gold ornaments were handed over to her husband Mohammed Ismail, elder brother-in-laws Mohammed Raffiq and Mohammed Umar and uncle-in-law petitioner-Mohammed Shokat Ali. It is also narrated in the impugned FIR that after her marriage, the husband of the complainant-respondent No. 2 used to ill-treat her and the elder brothers-in-law and sister-in-law used to demand dowry from time to time. It is also alleged by the complainant-respondent No. 2 in the impugned FIR that her husband went to Dubai and later on, she also joined him at Dubai and resided with him but her husband was constantly demanding dowry from her. It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that during regular intervals, on account of demand of dowry, she was called by her father to India and every time her in-laws had requested her father to send the complainant-respondent No. 2 to Dubai with the promise that they will never ill-treat her in future. In the impugned FIR, it is specifically alleged that on 09.05.2005, she returned to India due to ill-treatment and after one year, the petitioner came to her father's house and informed that her husband is injured so she should take care of him, however, when her father complained the petitioner about the ill-treatment given to his daughter, the petitioner assured her father that she would never be ill-treated and the petitioner has specifically said that her ornaments are lying with him. In the impugned FIR, several incidents have been narrated in respect of ill-treatment given to the complainant-respondent No. 2 by other co-accused persons. However, against the petitioner, it is alleged that her ornaments are lying with him but he is not returning the same despite specific demand.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are only omnibus and constitute no offences. It is further contended that the petitioner is Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and lives in Dubai since 1993 and he has nothing to do with the dispute between the complainant-respondent No. 2 and her in-laws. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is distant relative of husband of the complainant-respondent No. 2 and he, in no manner, can be held responsible for ill-treatment to her and misappropriation of her Stridhan.