R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR, FIR No.11/2010, registered at Police Station Kherli, District Alwar for offence under Sections 498A & 406 IPC.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that on 17.11.2009, one of the petitioners, namely Radheshyam, has submitted a complaint to the SHO, Kherli wherein he had claimed that Gita Kumari, his daughter-in-law, is threatening to falsely implicate her husband, Chandra Prakash, and other family members in a case of dowry demand. He had further claimed that Gita Kumari's family members had entered his house and had taken away movable property and had threatened his wife that the matter should not be reported to the Police. They had further threatened that in case the matter were reported to the Police, the family would be falsely implicated in criminal case. Subsequently, on 05.12.2009, Gita Kumari filed a complaint before the Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Kathumar, Alwar. The said complaint was sent for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police has registered a FIR, FIR No.11/2010 against the petitioners. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Prakash Thakuria, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the complaint submitted by the Radheshyam has not been acted upon by the Police. Despite the fact that the complainant, Radheshyam, had gone to the Superintendent of Police, Alwar, even then the Police has not taken any action against Gita Kumari and her family members. Secondly, Gita Kumari and her family members have carried out the threat and have falsely implicated the petitioners in a criminal case. Therefore, the FIR 11/2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain to this Court as to why the petitioners could not have filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No.2, when the Police was not taking any action against the respondent No.2 and her family members. To this query, the learned counsel has not been able to give any satisfactory answer. 6. Although he has informed this Court that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 have been released on bail, he claims that the bail application of the petitioner No.1, Chandra Prakash, has been rejected. He does pray that this Court should protect the liberty of the petitioner No.1. However, as the bail has already been rejected, it is not for this Court to protect the liberty at the present moment. Of course since the anticipatory bail has been rejected by the court, the petitioner No.1 is free to take recourse to other alternative remedy available to him. 7. In this view of the matter, the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay petition is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.;