[2025:RJ-JP:15144] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1631/2023 1. Umesh Son Of Shri Mangejaram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Majipura, Police Station Dhod, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 2. Mangejaram Son Of Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 72 Years, Son Of Shri Mangejaram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Majipura, Police Station Dhod, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 3. Smt. Anita Wife Of Shri Kishore Daughter Of Shri Mangejaram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Beri, Tarpura, Police Station Dadiya, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 4. Smt. Rachna Wife Of Shri Rajesh Daughter Of Shri Mangejaram, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Beri Tarpura, Police Station Dadiya, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 5. Smt. Patasi Wife Of Shri Mangejaram, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Majipura, Police Station Dhod, District Sikar (Rajasthan) 6. Pankaj Son Of Shri Mangejaram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Majipura, Police Station Dhod, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Smt. Sarita Daughter Of Ramdev Gurjar Alleged Wife Of Pankaj, Resident Of Majipura, Police Station Dhod Presently Residing At Kuwalsar Ladhana, Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Akriti Mathur for Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P. Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 03/04/2025 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge-sheet No.15/2023, Police Station Ranoli, Distt. Sikar and the entire criminal [2025:RJ-JP:15144] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1631/2023] proceedings of Criminal Case No.488/2023 titled as State v. Pankaj Gurjar & Ors. pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sikar, arising out of the F.I.R. No.501/2022, registered at Police Station Ranoli, Distt. Sikar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 & 323 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged incident did not happen the way as described in the F.I.R. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are ready to pay the dowry amount/items but the aggrieved complainant party is not ready to accept the same, thus, the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. does not stand against the petitioners. Considering all the facts & circumstances, the present petition may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. may also be quashed and set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that the investigation has been completed by the Investigating Officer and the prosecution witnesses have also given their testimonies regarding the alleged incident. It is further submitted that when the alleged incident took place, the Police was present there, which clearly shows that the incident did take place. It is also submitted that the complainant-respondent No.2, namely Sarita and her elder sister Sunita, who were present at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident, also sustained injuries, [2025:RJ-JP:15144] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1631/2023] whose injury reports are also available on record. Hence, the present petition may be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, more particularly the injury reports of injured persons, namely Sarita & Sunita and the testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses during trial. After going through the facts & circumstances of the case, it cannot be said at all that the alleged incident took place without any evidence and it is also a well established law that the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be quashed only if there is no evidence in the case. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it just & proper to allow the present miscellaneous petition. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAHIL SONI /242