IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CR.MISC. PETITION NO.2251/2012
Mool Chand Yadav & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
Date of order : 14/08/2012.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Shri Nishant Sharma for the petitioner.
Shri G.S. Fauzdar,P.P. for the State.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
******
This revision petition has been preferred by father-in-law and mother-in-law seeking quashment of FIR lodged against them and their son Mukesh Yadav, daughter and mother of petitioner no.1. All family members have been made accused. According to petitioner, this is a case of gross misuse of the provisions of Section 498A and 406 of IPC. The marriage between the son of the petitioner Mukesh Yadav and complainant Kamesh @ Kamla was solemnised 11 years ago. Following matrimonial dispute between the two, the wife left the husband and went to reside with her parents. The husband Mukesh Yadav thereafter filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce. The ex-parte decree of divorce was passed by the learned Family Court, Jaipur on 05.06.2010. It was thereafter that the wife filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with the prayer that the ex-parte decree be set aside, which application has been dismissed by the learned Family Court on 8.4.2011. It was thereafter that the complainant-wife filed a complaint making family members as the accused. The complaint has been made to harass the petitioners and to teach them a lesson. Learned counsel therefore argued that the FIR be quashed. It is argued that since the complainant-wife happens to be relative of one of the police officials, the investigation has been changed twice. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
Shri G.S. Fauzdar, learned Public Prosecutor argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and other accused in the FIR and even if the petitioners wants to show to the Investigating Officer that this complaint is false and resulted from the matrimonial litigation between the husband and wife, they should produce these documents before the Investigating Officer and there is no reason why he could not look into them.
Having regard to the fact situation noticed above, it is apparent that the complaint has been filed by the wife much after the matrimonial litigation was started by the husband in 2009 when he filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. The ex-parte decree of divorce was passed on 05.06.2010 and thereafter the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed on 8.4.2011. These are apparent facts. However, the petitioners should produce these documents before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer should make a fair investigation and if there is relationship of complainant with any of the members of the police force or police official, there would be no reason for him not to undertake a fair investigation and harass the petitioners who are the mother and father of the husband and other family members because it appears that despite differences being confined between husband and wife, all family members have been made accused. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned, who shall ensure free, fair and impartial investigation into the matter.
Without therefore making any interference with the investigation, it is however directed in the interest of justice that petitioners shall not be arrested. They should however appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and file all the documents which they want to show proving differences between husband and wife and that allegations against them is totally false.
The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
A copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned for compliance.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS/103
All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed.
(Ravi Sharma,P.A.)
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment