DHANWANTI DEVI D/O VASUDEV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN; NIRMALA BISHNOI; JASSARAM BOSE; KAILASH BISHNOI; RAJENDRA PRASAD PAREEK; HINA PARIHAR; MADAN GOPAL VYAS; LAKHWINDER SINGH; CHANDRA KAILASH SWAMI; ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant misc. petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed for numerous reliefs. The relief clause of the petition, in verna-cular, is reproduced as under:

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that petitioner submitted a criminal complaint against her husband, in-laws and maternal uncle-in-law with a specific allegation that they are harassing her for bringing inadequate dowry and have also given her beating. She has also charged the accused persons for criminal misappropriation of her ''Streedhan'' under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. The complaint filed before Judicial Magistrate, 1s t Class, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') was sent for investigation under sub-sec.(3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. to Mahila Police Station, Hanumangarh and investigation in the matter was conducted by second respondent as SHO of the police station.

(3.) The petitioner has leveled serious allegations against second respondent in the petition by stating that she was hand in glove with her husband and other members of in-laws family and with a view to help them pressurized her to sign a written compromise but she declined. As per petitioner, later on second respondent forged her signature on a written compromise and relying on the said compromise submitted a false final report before the learned trial Court. Besides second respondent, the petitioner has also attributed vital role of her other subordinates in the entire episode. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid action of second respondent, as per petitioner, she preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12878 of 2013 and, while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed for FSL Examination of her signatures and the signatures of her father on the disputed documents, which were part of Criminal Case No.60/2013 pending before the learned trial Court. It is with all these allegations the petitioner has castigated all the respondents including a judicial officer in her petition by arraying them as party to the litigation.