1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1196/2008 KHETA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER ::: 16/12/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr.B.K.Bhatnagar, for Petitioner (s) Mr. V. R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State – respondent. Petitioner requests quashing of cognizance for the offences of Sections 143, 324, 323, 406 & 498-A, IPC, taken vide Magisterial order dated 2.7.08 and also consequential quashing of proceedings. Brief facts for disposal of this petition are that complainant respondent No.2 submitted a criminal complaint on 19.5.08 before the Court of ACJM, Merta city, against her in-laws, including husband of respondent No.2, alleging that (i) marriage solemnized 20 years ago and other ceremonies 15 years ago. (ii) A daughter born after 3-4 years and then in-laws began cruelty with her and demanded dowry. (iii) Her father – brother paid Rs.70,000/-, still cruelty continued. (iv) Also two sons, but husband never paid any expenses. (v) She expelled six months earlier by in-laws and since then, she is living in 'Nohra'. (vi) On 16.5.08, petitioner and others came and petitioner in a drunkard position severely injured her and snatched her ornaments. (vii) Also alleged the police did not act – complaint forwarded under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C., and FIR registered – after completion of investigation, police report submitted against petitioner and cognizance also taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that marriage solemnized 20 years earlier - blessed with three issues eldest being 11 years – alleges expulsion but also tells that she is living in 'Nohra' of in-laws. Argues that injuries mentioned in injury report are all simple and 2 complainant respondent on her own got examined by doctor and she not forwarded to Medical Officer by investigating agency. Argued that no material exists to justify cognizance. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that copy of injury report is very much on record and direct are allegations against petitioner. Considered arguments and perused copies of FIR and injury report. Incident of beating is described to be of May 16th, injury report is of May 17th and described are the alleged injuries. Without going into further details on examining minutely, as the petitioner shall be having every opportunity to put up his case at the earliest stage of trial and as arguments advanced above, are all based on facts, the petition is not entertainable and is to be rejected. The petition is rejected. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd