Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt.Bhanwari Devi vs Dr.Rameshwar Lal And Anr on 8 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:17209]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 625/2014
1. Dr. Rameshwar Lal son of late Shyama Ram, by caste Jat,
resident of 6-C-82, J.N.V. Colony, Bikaner.
2. Smt. Usha D/o Chiman Lal, by caste Christain, resident of 6-
C-92, J.N.V. Colony, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Bhanwari Devi wife of Rameshwar Lal Dhaka, resident of
B-52, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2009
Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Dr. Rameshwar Lal Dhaka, B/C Jat,
Age-60 Years, R/o B-52, Karni Nagar, Pawanpuri, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Rameshwar Lal son of late Shyam Lal Dhaka, by caste Jat,
resident of 6-C-82, J.N.V. Colony, Bikaner.
2. State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. RS Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Order pronounced on : 08.04.2025
Order Reserved on : 05.03.2025
Both the cases are interconnected and are the parties as well
as their councels are the same, therefore with their consent, the
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:19:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17209] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-625/2014]
arguments were heard together and are being decided by this
common order.
In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 625/2014:-
1. The petitioners have made challenge to the order dated
18.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.3, Bikaner and the order dated 23.01.2014 passed
in revisional jurisdiction whereby the order of framing charges was
affirmed. The sum and substance of the allegations are that the
respondent No.2 Smt. Bhanwari Devi happens to be the wife of
the Petitioner No.1 – Dr. Rameshwar Lal and, therefore, name was
entered in his service record. Perhaps a serious discrepancy
errupted in between Dr. Rameshwar Lal and Smt. Bhanwari Devi
and they separated themselves. An FIR No.105/2000 under
Sections 498-A, 406 and 494 of IPC was lodged, in which, the
parties entered into compromise at a later stage of 13.06.2000.
As per the conditions of agreement dated 27.06.2000, the
petitioner Dr. Rameshwar Lal agreed to pay Rs.3500/- per month
till his superannuation and post his retirement, the benefit shall be
divided in between the two wives.
1.2 The charges in this case are with regard to non-performance
of the agreed conditions of the deed dated 13.06.2000. The
learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners under
Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC which was further approved by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction.
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:19:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17209] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-625/2014]
1.3 Initially after thorough investigation, a negative final report
was submitted holding the dispute of civil nature, however, upon
making protest by the respondent, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence and later, directed to frame charges vide
order dated 18.09.2012. Both the orders, passed by the learned
Magistrate and the learned Court of Revision are under challenge
before this Court.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and feels that
the ingredients essential to constitute an offence under Section
420 of IPC are blatantly missing in this case since lacking
availability of the essential ingredient. While hearing on the
question of charge, the Court has to form an opinion to the effect
that there are reasonable grounds to presume the accused guilty
of the offence alleged. The presumption should be based upon
strong legal and factual aspects. Making breach of a particular
condition of an agreement does not ipso facto make a case
amenable to a criminal prosecution. The basic element of having
dishonest intention right from the very inception and then
inducing the wife to believe upon a certain fact and delivery of
something by the wife to her husband under that influence and
thereby causing damage to her property or reputation or mind or
body, are the essential ingredients which are conspicuously absent
in this case. Both the Courts below have failed to examine this
legal aspect of the matter.
3. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The order
dated 18.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:19:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17209] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-625/2014]
Magistrate, No.3, Bikaner in Criminal Original Case No.200/2011
and the order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petition
No.147/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners
are exonerated from the charges.
4. Stay petition is disposed of.
5. Nothing would preclude the respondent No.2 from making
her approach to a civil proceeding for performance of the agreed
conditions.
In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 439/2009:-
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, No.2, Bikaner in
Criminal Revision No.63/2008 whereby he set aside the order
dated 16.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate, First Class No.3, Bikaner directing maintenance to be
provided to the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that there is a marital
dispute in between the parties. The petitioner moved an
application seeking maintenance which was allowed by the learned
Magistrate directing paying of Rs.1500/- per month arrears
towards her maintenance. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order,
the respondent-husband preferred a criminal revision petition, in
which, both the parties were heard. The learned Court of Revision
observed several things including the fact that the spouses have
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:19:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17209] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-625/2014]become very old now. Two properties situated at Jaipur and Sikar
were benefited the petitioner and ancestral agricultural property of
the respondent as well as a residence in Fatehpura town was also
in her possession. The agreement (Ex.-P/1) was also tendered into
evidence which is approving all above facts. The learned Court of
Revision considered this fact that the petitioner may maintain
herself from the income of the agricultural land in her possession
which was provided by the respondent.
2.1 The jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is vested in a
Sessions Judge and which are concurrent to this Court and by
which provision, the High Court or the Court of Session is
expected to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the
order passed by the Court below which in this case has very wisely
been examined. I see no reason to make interference in a well
reasoned judgment. There is no force in the instant petition, thus,
the same deserves to be dismissed.
3. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition is dismissed
as having no force.
4. Stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
35-36 divya/-
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:19:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)