HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4884/2015 1. Amar Saxena S/o Late Shri Vijay Saxena, R/o Plot No. 2/664, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Smt. Gauri Saxena W/o Shri Surya Prakash. 3. Surya Prakash Maheshwari S/o late Shri Gopal Lal Petitioner No.2 and 3 are R/o M-14, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Smt. Puja Bhatnagar W/o Shri Seemant Bhatnagar R/o 71/37 madyam Marg, Mansarovar, jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through PP 2. Smt. Shradhha Saxena W/o Shri Amar Saxena D/o Dependra Singh Saxena R/o Plot No.64, Arvind Nagar, CBI Colony, Jagatpura, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. At present Plot No.170/183, Pratap Nagar, Housing Board, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rahul Singh & Mr.M.L. Sharma for Mr.R.K. Daga For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP Ms.Shridha Saxena (in-person) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Misc. Petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned F.I.R. No.151/2015 registered at the Mahila Police Station, Jaipur City (East) under Section 498-A & 406 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of the petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the respondent No.2 on (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4884/2015] 08.02.2011, however, on account of cruel attitude of the respondent No.2, the married life could not pull on well and thereafter, the respondent No.2 started residing separately. Counsel submits that initially, there were talks of compromise going on between the parties, but the same failed, hence, under these circumstances, a divorce petition was filed by the petitioner No.1 against the respondent No.2 seeking dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Counsel submits that the said divorce petition, submitted by the petitioner No.1, has been allowed and the marriage of the parties has been dissolved. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are vague and the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as respondent No.2, who has put in appearance in-person submits that after marriage, she was subjected to torture and harassment for demand of dowry, and that is why, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered against all the petitioners, wherein allegations have been levelled against them, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the contents of the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. reveals commission of a cognizable offence and therefore, correctness of the allegations cannot be examined and adjudicated by this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4884/2015] contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Agency. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to file a representation along-with the documents in support of the same. It is expected from the Investigating Officer to consider the same and in case, any involvement of the petitioners is found to be prima facie proved, then a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. be issued and the result of the investigation be submitted before the competent Court of law expeditiously, as early as possible, looking to the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2015. 7. Interim order passed by this Court stands vacated. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /26