GIRISH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No.132/2015, registered at Mahila Police Station, Bikaner and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.114/2016, pending before Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner (for short, 'learned trial Court'). In the aforesaid criminal case, petitioners are charged for offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 and 323 IPC. It is also borne out from the record that learned trial Court has already taken cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that FIR as such is not disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Learned counsel further submits that after filing of petition for dissolution of marriage the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR as a counter blast, and therefore, same is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in, Bhupendra Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 3 RajLW 2632 and Dinesh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 2 RajLW 1291.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that a bare perusal of FIR makes it abundantly clear that same discloses commission of cognizable offence. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or relatives, in the present scenario, has become a menace to the society and if there is prima facie proof about cruelty meted out to the woman, neither FIR nor proceedings pursuant thereto can be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor has urged that investigating agency, after conducting thorough investigation, has prima facie collected incriminating evidence against the petitioners and has consequently submitted charge-sheet, therefore, no interference in the matter is warranted.