[2025:RJ-JP:26040] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4007/2025 Lokesh Mishra S/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder Mishra, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 110, Bhartendu Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (An Elderly Person Suffering from Brain Stroke, Senior Citizen) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Smt. Rani Mishra W/o Lokesh Mishra, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Pratap Nagar, Sector 29, MIGB, 305 MB 9, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Gautam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 14/07/2025 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred for quashing the revision order dated 12.06.2025, whereby the learned District and Session Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition against framing of the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the FIR and prayed for quashing the case under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.2 was solemnised in the year 2004, and thereafter, FIR No.8/2015, came to be registered at Police Station Bani Park, in which the Police, after thorough investigation, filed the negative final report on [2025:RJ-JP:26040] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4007/2025] 09.09.2016. It is contended that on the same facts, another FIR bearing No.40/2015 was filed before the Police Station Jalupura. In that case, by filing the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner, prayed for quashing of FIR, and the Police submitted the factual report stating that no prima facie case under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC is made out. Based on said factual report, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the fact narrated in the impugned FIR resembles that in the FIR Nos. 08/2015 and No. 40/2015 were submitted before the Police Station Bani Park and the Police Station Jalupura, respectively. Submitting the charge- sheet in the impugned FIR against the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The Police, after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner regarding the fact that on similar facts, the S.H.O. Bani Park and S.H.O. Jalupura did not find commission of offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. It is also contended that the Court below did not consider that the Police in the present charge-sheet did not find commission of an offence under Section 406 of the IPC. The Court below framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC without reviewing the material available on the record. Therefore, the FIR submitted against the petitioner may be quashed. In the alternative, the order of the revisional Court directing the concerned Court to frame an order of charges against the petitioner under Section 406 may be quashed. 3. Heard and perused the material available on the record. [2025:RJ-JP:26040] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4007/2025] 4. The petitioner did not challenge the FIR when the investigation against the petitioner was initiated under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC; instead, the petitioner has questioned the FIR after a delay of almost 10 years. The Police, after investigating the case, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC. The Learned trial Court, after considering the material available on the record, framed charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, and the question as to whether the offence under Section 406 of IPC is made out or not is a question of fact. The Police, after investigation, concluded that a prima facie offence under Section 406 of the IPC is made out. It is relevant to mention that while framing the charges, the Court has to consider the material available on the record and it cannot go beyond the same, therefore, this Court do not find any illegality in the order, whereby the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC were framed against the petitioner and subsequent order passed by the revisional Court dismissing the petitioner’s revision petition. 7. Upshot of the above discussion, the present criminal miscellaneous petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-71