1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1260/2005 Asha Rani vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date: 29.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr. D.D. Khandelwal, for the respondent no. 2. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Mst. Asha Rani has prayed to quash the order dated 9th January, 2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kama and order dated 5th July, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Deeg in its revisional jurisdiction. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one FIR No. 254/1998 came to be registered in the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC at police station Kama on the basis of complaint sent under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate, Kama. On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet in the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC against the accused persons namely Padamchand, Vijay Singh, Pitaram Pisran 2 Raghunath, Raghunath, Shivraj, Gurudayal, Hari Singh, Smt. Bhoti Devi and Smt. Sheela Devi but thereafter, Judicial Magistrate, Kama vide order dated 9th January, 2003 proceeded against the petitioner Asha Rani also, whereas there was not even a shred of evidence on record against her. The order dated 9th January, 2003 with regard to issuing process against the petitioner Asha Rani is totally groundless and against the provisions of law, which deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant- respondent as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State defended the impugned orders dated 9th January, 2003 and 5th July, 2005 and stated the same to be just and proper, which call for no interference. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the complaint filed by complainant Indra Devi and her statements, it is noticed the allegations levelled against the petitioner Asha Rani are totally omnibus in nature. Virtually no allegation has been levelled against her. Simply, her name has been mentioned along with the names of other co-accused persons in the complaint. When the learned counsel for the complainant – respondent was asked to pin point the allegation and any evidence, if collected by police against the petitioner, he expressed his 3 inability and simply submitted that there was no specific allegation against her. 6. It is relevant to record that the petitioner Mst. Asha Rani happens to be the sister-in-law of the complainant Indra Devi. Soon after her marriage, she went to village of Haryana, where she was living with her husband and in-laws. When the petitioner was not living at all with the complainant in her house, how there could be any possibility of having the complainant been subjected to cruelty by the petitioner? Learned Judicial Magistrate without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered to proceed against the petitioner Smt. Asha Rani, whereas there was no evidence on record against her. Similarly, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg also in his revisional jurisdiction passed a cryptic order without peeping into the depth of the case. It seems that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Deeg passed the order dated 5th July, 2005 in routine sans ascertaining the fact, as to whether there was any ground on record to proceed against her. 7. Both the orders with regard to issuing process against the petitioner Asha Rani for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC seems to be improper and against the material available on record, which deserves to be set 4 aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the order dated 9th January, 2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kama and order dated 5th July, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Deeg in respect of petitioner are set aside. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 40