1 S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.1328/2007 Smt. Kiran Rathi v. State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 8th January, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. P.C.Solanki, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor. .... By order dated 5.11.2007, learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur framed charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323/34 IPC. Challenge is given to framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC being having no evidentiary foundation. In brief, facts of the case are that on 16.7.2007 one Smt. Seema reported in writing that after her marriage in the year 1998 she was regularly tortured by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Smt. Kiran (present petitioner). She also alleged for sexual exploitation amounting rape by his brother-in-law Ramkishore Birla, a “tantrik” Gulam Mohd. and by other members of her in-laws family. Accordingly, investigation was launched for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 376, 384, 323/34 IPC and a police report as per the provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed, acting thereupon learned Sessions Judge took cognizance against the accused persons including the petitioner. 2 It is asserted by counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, even in the first information report no allegation is there against the petitioner on basis of which a case for commission of any offence punishable under Section 406 IPC could have been made out. I have examined the order impugned, police report and the documents annexed thereto. Learned Sessions Judge charged the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC for keeping ornaments, clothes and other articles of the complainant with her. This Court in the case of Smt. Mobina & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1329/2007, decided on 5th December, 2007, held as follows:- “The law is well settled that jurisdiction to quash the cognizance taken should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The law is equally settled that when the allegations made in complaint or police report, as the case may be, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the Court may quash the order 3 taking cognizance of the commission of the offence alleged. The Court is required to examine as to whether uncontroverted allegations made in the first information report and the evidence gathered in support of the same do disclose to commission of any offence? Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill [1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] and also in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [2000 SCC (Cri) 615], while considering the issue relating to quashing of complaint itself, held that, if a prima facie case is made out disclosing ingredients of the offences, Court should not quash the complaint but if the allegation do not constitute any offence as alleged and appears to be patently absurd and improbable, Court should not hesitate to quash even the complaint.” In the instant matter in the police report certain allegations relating to commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioner are available, however, there is nothing on basis of that it can be presumed that after marriage of the informant any ornament, cloth or other articles were ever entrusted to the petitioner and the petitioner retained the same with her fraudulently. The informant in her statements recorded as per provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. also nowhere alleged any criminal breach of trust by the petitioner by keeping any ornament, cloth, goods or any other article that was entrusted to her or that was within 4 under her dominion. Whatever allegation there is against the present petitioner relates to cruelty and for that she has already been charged for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. From examination of entire police report, I do not find any material or even an iota of evidence on basis of that prima facie it can be found that the petitioner in any manner committed an act that may amount criminal breach of trust. Accordingly, this revision petition deserves acceptance, hence the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 5.11.2007 is quashed to the extent it relates to taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.