Vimla Soni And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners Smt. Vimla Soni and Dinesh Soni seeking

quashing of the FIR No.45/2019 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana (West), Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and

120-B IPC.

Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the petition are noted hereinbelow.

As per the allegations set out in the FIR, the respondent No.2 Smt. Nitu complainant was married to the petitioner No.2 Dinesh Soni on 15.04.2016. It

appears that soon after the marriage, minor squabbles started taking place between the complainant and her mother-in-law the petitioner Vimla Soni

over day to day household chores. The husband Dinesh Soni also used to quarrel with the complainant allegedly on the instigation of his mother. The

complainant conceived from the wedlock and she was admitted at the AIIMS Hospital by her in-laws. She gave birth to a daughter named Ruparna

on 13.12.2017. She was dropped off at her father's house after being discharged from the hospital. The parties allegedly quarrelled with each other

over this sequence of events. The complainant stayed at her father's house for about 6 to 7 months after the birth of her child, whereafter, her

husband took a separate premises on rent at Chandna Bhakhar, Jodhpur and the spouses started living there with their child. There too, the disputes

between the husband and the wife continued over trivial issues. On 29.09.2018, the husband and the wife quarreled with each other, on which, the

complainant's brother and other relatives came down to the rented house and an altercation took place between the parties. Dinesh Soni immediately

vacated the rented premises and went back to live with his mother. The complainant was taken back to her father's house, where she had been living

for last 4 to 5 months. Counselling was undertaken between the spouses for resolution of the matrimonial discord, but could not succeed. The husband

refused to live with his wife. Thereupon, the impugned FIR came to be lodged against the petitioners and the other matrimonial family members.

As per the factual report placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Officer has found the offences under Sections 498-A

and 406 IPC proved against the present petitioners after concluding investigation. The conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer in the factual

report are relevant and germane for disposal of the miscellaneous petition and thus, are being reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference

:-

498, 406,

, ,

323

120

4-5

, -

-

◌ 1277/2014

41 0 0 0

Mr. Sabir Khan, learned counsel representing the petitioners, vehemently and fervently urged that even accepting the allegations of the complainant to

be true on the face of the record, ex facie, no offence is made out against the petitioners. He urged that admittedly, the dispute between the parties

was over trivial household issues and that the complainant was never maltreated on account of demand of dowry etc. at any point of time. Because of

the inherent differences between the petitioner Vimla and the complainant, the husband Dinesh took a separate premises on rent at Chandna Bhakhar,

where the spouses started living together in the year 2017. Thereafter, there was no interaction whatsoever between the petitioner No.1 Vimla Soni

and the complainant. He further urged that the petitioner No.2 Dinesh Soni had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against

the respondent complainant. During these proceedings, conciliation proceedings were held and the complainant agreed to live with the husband. He,

thus, urges that ex facie, no ingredients of the offences alleged are made out against the petitioners and the FIR deserves to be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. P.D. Dave, learned counsel representing the complainant, vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. They urged that there are clear allegations of the complainant that after only 5 to 6 months of the

marriage, she was regularly harassed and humiliated in her matrimonial home for unjust demands and that her Stridhan articles were also usurped.

They, thus, urged that the petitioners do not deserve indulgence of this court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the impugned FIR.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on

record.

Ex facie, from the tenor of the allegations as set out in the FIR, it is clear that the intrinsic nature of dispute between the petitioner Smt. Vimla and the

complainant Smt. Nitu was over trifling day to day household chores/affairs. A couple of years before lodging of the report, the complainant had left

the matrimonial home and went back to live at her father's house, whereafter petitioner No.2 Dinesh filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act. Conciliation was attempted between the spouses, who agreed to bury their differences and to resume their conjugal relations.

Thereafter they started living together in a separate rented premises at Chandna Bhakhar, Jodhpur, where the last incident of the so-called

maltreatment with the complainant took place by the petitioner Dinesh. There was hardly any occasion for the petitioner No.1 Smt. Vimla Soni to have

interacted with the complainant during these years. In the entire FIR, there is no specific allegation of the complainant regarding entrustment of her

Stridhan articles to the petitioner No.1 Vimla.

In the wake of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the firm opinion that permitting continuance of investigation of the impugned FIR against the

petitioner No.1 Smt. Vimla Soni is absolutely unwarranted, unjust and amounts to an abuse of process of law.

As a consequence, investigation of the impugned FIR No.45/2019 registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana (West) is quashed qua the petitioner

No.1 Vimla Soni. However, the same shall continue against the petitioner No.2 Dinesh Soni. The instant miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is

hereby allowed partly in these terms.