MANOJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeking to quash FIR of Case No. 53, dated 4-6-1996 under Ss. 498-A and 406, IPC, police station, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur and in the alternative to treat the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to give appropriate remedy to the petitioners in the interest of justice.

(2.) The brief facts are that Smt. Rashmi the daughter of Dev Dutt Kalla resident of Jalap Mohalla, Jodhpur was married to petitioner No. 1 Manoj Joshi son of Shri Mandal Dutt Joshi resident of Lodha-Ki-Gali, Veer Mohalla, Jodhpur on 8th February, 1996. It is alleged that she was turned out of her matrimonial home just after two days by the petitioners after treating her with cruelty to satisfy the demand of Rs. 2 lacs for starting business by petitioner No. 1. She again went to petitioners' house but they threatened her and repeated their demand for Rs. two lacs without which she had no place to live with them. She was again turned out on 2-3-96. Her parents went to meet the petitioners on 3-3-96 with her, but the petitioners hurled abuses and said that she could not live there without payment of Rs. 2 lacs. Despite this she again went on 4-3-1996 on the festival of Holi, but again she was treated with cruelty. She was turned out. The petitioners refused to return the dowry articles and the ornaments. All the efforts by the maternal uncle and other relatives failed and the petitioners even threatened to perform second marriage of the petitioner No. 1. Shri Amar Singh and Kamlesh continued to give threatenings to her. She also came to know that her husband petitioner No. 1 Manoj was living in the house of Prem Babu with a girl Parmindra Kaur, a Supervisor in Angan Wari at Deedwana. The maternal uncle and other relatives met the parents of the girl Parmindra Kaur, who knew this fact, but expressed their helplessness. The parents of Parmindra Kaur brought this fact to the notice of Shri Mandal Dutt, the father of her husband, but he did not pay any heed to call back his son. Ultimately her father-in-law Shri Mandal Dutt Joshi admitted on 9-5-96 that his son is not in his control and his son has brought bad name to him in the society. A quarrel also took place between her husband Shri Manoj and father-in-law about relations with ParmindraKaur and during that quarrel her father-in-law even threatened his son that he would commit suicide. Ultimately he committed suicide on the same day. On the above report a case u/Ss. 498-A, 406, IPC, FIR No. 53/96 was registered which now the petitioners have prayed to be quashed through this petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. I have also gone through the documents submitted by the petitioners. Before I deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be relevant and useful to consider the powers of this Court to quash FIR or the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under S. 482, Cr. P.C. This question has engaged the mind of the Apex Court in number of cases. In AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527) State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, their lordships of the Supreme Court have after considering number of decisions observed as follows in Para 108 :