KHUSHBU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revisions petitions are directed against the order dated 13.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.43/2014 and are thus being decided together.

(2.) Facts in brief are that respondent No.2 Makkhan Lal lodged a written report at the Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner on 22.06.2014 alleging inter alia that he had lodged a report at the police station a few days ago in which, he had complained of the misbehaviour being meted out to his family members by Smt. Khushbu wife of his younger son Kanhaiya Lal. It was alleged in the report that on 20.06.2014, the lady crossed all limits and accompanied by her father Shyam Bohra, mother, Babulal Vyas, etc., she came to his house and misbehaved with his daughters and also outraged their modesty. The household articles were damaged. Locks of an almirah were broken and Khusbhu took away some valuables from it. While going away, these persons threatened that either Khushbu would kill Kanhaiya Lal or he would be left with no option but to end his life. Makkhan Lal mentioned in the report that despite the incident of 20.06.2014 being reported at the police station, no action was taken and rather he was advised to go to the woman police station where, talks of settlement were undertaken between the parties. In the night preceding lodging of the report, Khushbu called Kanhaiya Lal on mobile and threatened him with dire consequences. Being perturbed thereby, Kanhaiya Lal committed suicide. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.226/2014 came to be lodged at the Police Station Naya Shahar, District Bikaner and investigation was commenced. After investigation, the investigating officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 306/34 IPC. The trial court passed the order dated 13.07.2015 and directed framing of charges against all the accused for the offences under Section 306 IPC in the alternate under Section 306/34 IPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these three revisions. Whilst the revision Nos.922/2015 and 875/2015 were presented within limitation, however, the revision No.1395/2015 submitted on behalf of petitioner Dau Lal is time barred without any application for condonation of delay. However, at the time of advancing arguments, Shri H.S. Shrimali learned counsel representing the petitioner Dau Lal submitted that as this Court has already entertained two other revisions against the very same order passed by the trial court, the delay occasioned in filing the revision No.1395/2015 being bonafide be condoned and the same be heard on merit. The oral prayer made by Shri H.S. Shrimali is fit to be accepted and thus, the delay occasioned in filing of the revision No.1395/2015 is condoned.

(3.) Notice of the revision No.922/2015 has been served on the respondent complainant and Mr. Ajay Vyas, Advocate has put in appearance on his behalf. His arguments were heard in all the three revisions on behalf of the complainant.