R & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

[2024:RJ-JD:28080]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4223/2024

(1) R
(2)-(5) [four further petitioners, members of R's family; names omitted] ----Petitioners
Versus
(1) State of Rajasthan, through PP
(2) SDO, [sub-division omitted]
(3) S [name omitted] ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.R. Meghwal
For Respondent(s): Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order

10/07/2024

[NyayVidhan notes: (1) this is a matrimonial and family dispute involving a wife and two children. To protect their privacy, petitioner No. 1 (the husband) is referred to as "R" and respondent No. 3 as "S"; the names of the other petitioners, their parentage, ages and addresses, and the SDO's sub-division are omitted (marked in square brackets). The order itself does not name the wife or the children. (2) Paragraph 2 and paragraph 4.1 describe the wife as respondent No. 3's daughter, while paragraph 2.2 calls respondent No. 3 her brother; both are reproduced as printed. (3) The paragraphs, including sub-paragraphs 2.1-2.3 and 4.1, are otherwise as printed; page furniture (running heads, page numbers, upload stamps and the reporting line) is omitted.]

1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of notice/warrant dated 19.06.2024 under Sections 97-98 of Cr.P.C. issued by SDO, [sub-division omitted] in Case No.2/2024 and pending proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Relevant Facts first. The petitioners and Respondent No. 3 belong to the same caste, where the custom of "Aatta Satta" marriage is practiced. Petitioner No. 1's sister was married into Respondent No. 3's family, and in exchange, Respondent No. 3's daughter was married to Petitioner No. 1. From this marriage, Petitioner No. 1 and his wife have a daughter and a son. However, the marriage of Petitioner No. 1's sister failed due to alleged cruelty by Respondent No. 3's family, leaving her no choice but to return to live with her parents.

2.1 Respondent No. 3, feeling aggrieved, initiated proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 of the Cr.P.C. before Respondent No. 2, alleging the illegal detention of Petitioner No. 1's wife, daughter, and son. Respondent No. 2 issued an impugned notice/warrant dated 19.06.2024, directing the concerned SHO to conduct a search and produce Petitioner No. 1's wife, daughter, and son.

2.2 In response to the notice, Petitioner No. 1's wife filed a reply clarifying that she is the legally wedded wife of Petitioner No. 1, and that her brother (Respondent No. 3) is seeking revenge, which is the real reason for initiating these proceedings. She requested that the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 3 be quashed.

2.3 Despite her reply, the proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 of the Cr.P.C. have not been quashed, and the pressure tactics have continued, leading to the filing of the present miscellaneous petition.

3. In the aforementioned backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the case file.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned notice/warrant issued by Respondent No. 2 is an abuse of the legal process. He contends that the SDO failed to recognize that it is illogical to proceed on the basis that a husband would illegally detain his own wife, daughter and son.

4.1. He further submits that the impugned notice/warrant clearly shows that Respondent No. 3's daughter is the wife of Petitioner No. 1 and that the other petitioners are related to her as father-in-law, brother-in-law, etc. He asserts that the entire proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 3 are driven by vengeance and are intended solely to harass the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned proceedings should be quashed and set aside.

5. Having heard both sides and after perusal of the case file, I am of the view that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 of the Cr.P.C. is a legally valid process to ascertain if someone is wrongfully confined. The mere issuance of the notice/warrant by Respondent No. 2 to verify if there is any wrongful confinement meets the statutory requirements. On that ground alone, this court should not set aside the impugned proceedings without the proposed enquiry by the SDO.

6. Moreover, the allegations of illegal detention are serious and need to be looked into. The claim that a husband cannot detain his wife and children may not always hold true, especially if there is evidence or a credible allegation of coercion, threat, or abuse. In this context, it is expected of the SDO to consider whether the petitioners might have exerted undue influence or control over the wife and children.

7. Furthermore, given the current acrimony of the families, the welfare of the mother/wife and children is paramount. If there is even a remote possibility that they are being held against their will or subjected to any form of mistreatment, it is the duty of State to ensure their safety by allowing the legal process to continue. The possibility of wife's statement in the reply by putting pressure on her by her husband or his family cannot be ruled out. The claim of the petitioners that Respondent No. 3 is acting out of vengeance might be an attempt to deflect attention from the real issues at hand.

8. Given the peculiar facts, the family dispute and the failure of the "Aatta Satta" marriage arrangement seem to have added to the acrimonious situation. Instant petition could be an attempt to escape accountability for their role in the breakdown of the relationship and the alleged mistreatment. Summary quashing the proceedings at this stage would undermine the judicial process to ensure safety of family members and all parties' rights to be protected.

9. Objective of impugned proceedings is merely to ascertain the facts. Quashing the proceedings prematurely would prevent the truth from coming to light and could result in injustice to the alleged victims.

10. No grounds are thus made out to interfere. However, it is made clear that no coercive steps shall be taken by the official respondents against the petitioners.

11. Disposed of accordingly.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J