-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Rajneesh Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.804/2005 Rajneesh Vs. Bhoj Raj Singh & anr. (2) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.803/2005 UNDER SECTION 401/399 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Date of Judgment: May 20, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr.Rajneesh, petitioner, present in person. Mr.Vishnu Kachhwaha, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Bhin Kant Vyas, for respondent Bhoj Raj Singh. BY THE COURT : These two revision petitions are directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrat, Bikaner, dated 12.7.2005 passed separately in F.I.R.No.104/2003, lodged at Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner in which the Police gave the Final Report being No. 82/2003. This F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, hereinafter -2- referred-to as “the Act of 1961” at the time, when a Criminal Case against the petitioner and others was pending investigation at Mahila Police Station, Bikaner, being FIR No.33/2001 u/ss.406, 498A IPC. This F.I.R. against the petitioner was quashed by the order of this court dated 7.10.2003 in S.B.Cr.Misc.Petition No.487/2001 against which, non-petitioner Savita approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dt.18.1.2005 allowed the appeal by quashing the impugned order of this Court and directed the Mahila Police Station, Bikaner to proceed with the investigation of the case in F.I.R.No.33/2001 by observing that even if the divorce proceedings have been finalized by the Civil Court after quashing the F.I.R. u/s.498A IPC, the finding will be taken note of by the investigating agency or the Court. As per the record, the proceedings u/s.482 CrPC, whereby the F.I.R. was quashed, is of dated 7.10.2003 and the order of divorce was passed by the District Judge, Bikaner on 4.2.2004 and after the disposal of this divorce petition, the Final Report was given in FIR No.33/2001. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police has also given the Final Report on his complaint u/s.3 of the Act of 1961 in FIR No.104/2003 against which he filed the protest petition as well as petition to launch proceedings against the then SHO Bhoj Raj Singh under the Contempt of Courts Act. He -3- submits that he does not want to proceed further with the protest petition as well as the contempt petition by way of filing revision in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner in the light of the decision given by this Court in S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.753/2006, Natwarlal vs. State and others. Therefore, this revision petition should be disposed of by this court itself by quashing the order of prosecution against him u/s.211 IPC because if he proceeds again before the Revisional Court i.e. the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, where the marriage was solemnized, the situation may be further aggravated. Mr.Bhimkant Vyas, learned counsel for the then SHO Bhoj Raj Singh is also not contradicting this fact and is of the view that if the proceedings u/s.211 IPC are not initiated against the petitioner, he has no objection provided the petitioner also does not insist for the contempt proceedings. Keeping in view the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case and not to further aggravate the situation, it is desirable that these revision petitions should be disposed-of by this Court with the direction that neither the petitioner shall proceed with the protest petition in Cr.Misc.Case No.43/2005 nor in the Contempt Petition being No.184/2005 pending before the learned CJM, Bikaner in F.R.No.82/2003 arising out of -4- F.I.R.No.104/2003. Consequently, the proceedings u/s.211 IPC shall not be initiated against the petitioner and if already initiated, they will be treated to have been dropped. With these observations, both the revision petitions are disposed-of and the order of the learned CJM, Bikaner dated 12.7.2005 passed in both the petitions is modified accordingly. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. RANKAWAT JK, PS