The Rajasthan High Court recently stressed that criminal complaints in family disputes should not be entertained casually and without due scrutiny [Gordhan Lal and 2 Others vs State of Rajasthan]..Justice Arun Monga added that when one relative accuses another of criminal misconduct in a criminal complaint before the magistrate, caution must be exercised by both the judge and the police before registering a First Information Report (FIR).“In such sensitive matters, it is imperative to act with circumspection, prioritizing efforts to mend familial relationships rather than exacerbating discord,” the Court underscored..The magistrates must personally verify the allegations through verbal inquiries or other means, ensuring the complainant understands and substantiates the claims, thus deterring false or frivolous accusations, the Court emphasized.“In disputes involving allegations of a non-violent nature and magisterial trials, particularly when close/blood relatives are involved, magistrates should be mindful that the customary requirement of a sworn affidavit is often treated as a mere formality, relying on generic templates,” the Court added..The Bench made these observations while dealing with a plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered on the complaint made by a 72-year-old woman against her daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter. The FIR was registered on the basis of an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The elderly woman in the complaint accused her family members of usurping her property including money, gold and silver.After reading the FIR, the Court observed that none of the offences alleged were made out and yet the magistrate had directed registration of FIR.“Qua the order of the CJM, directing the registration of FIR, no doubt, his approach reveals adherence to the procedure as envisaged under section 175, ibid. However, the order doesn't elaborate on any analysis or discussion of the material presented before him. Neither does his order record any satisfaction as to how the examination of the police report withstands the judicial rigor,” it added..Calling it a rubber-stamp decision, the Court said criminalising a family dispute is a complete judicial oversight.“Section 175(3) BNSS has been invoked with no reasoning given for its application. The decision for registration of FIR is heavily reliant on the police's initial findings. A proactive approach by asking for supporting documentation would have ensured procedural fairness/any miscarriage of justice and judicial independence rather than point blank acceptance of police version,” it observed.On the merits of the allegations, the Court said refusal to repay the money and return the gold or silver ornaments allegedly lent by the 72-year-old to her family members do not constitute a criminal offence.“On the other hand, the allegations only show that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioners is purely civil in nature, which has been given the colour of criminality in the complaint forming the basis of the FIR,” it added, while quashing the FIR..The Court emphasized that criminal courts must not serve as tools for personal vendettas or to gain unwarranted advantages. “To sum up, in family disputes triable by Magistrates, especially those involving close relatives, magistrates should strive to nurture an environment conducive to preserving and strengthening familial bonds,” the Single Judge said.Further, the Court said that amicable resolution of disputes not only benefits the immediate parties involved but also safeguards future generations from the adverse impact of lingering animosities. .Advocates Chetan Prakash Soni and Sarita Soni represented the petitioners.Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh Rajpurohit represented the State.[Read Judgment]
The Rajasthan High Court recently stressed that criminal complaints in family disputes should not be entertained casually and without due scrutiny [Gordhan Lal and 2 Others vs State of Rajasthan]..Justice Arun Monga added that when one relative accuses another of criminal misconduct in a criminal complaint before the magistrate, caution must be exercised by both the judge and the police before registering a First Information Report (FIR).“In such sensitive matters, it is imperative to act with circumspection, prioritizing efforts to mend familial relationships rather than exacerbating discord,” the Court underscored..The magistrates must personally verify the allegations through verbal inquiries or other means, ensuring the complainant understands and substantiates the claims, thus deterring false or frivolous accusations, the Court emphasized.“In disputes involving allegations of a non-violent nature and magisterial trials, particularly when close/blood relatives are involved, magistrates should be mindful that the customary requirement of a sworn affidavit is often treated as a mere formality, relying on generic templates,” the Court added..The Bench made these observations while dealing with a plea seeking quashing of the FIR registered on the complaint made by a 72-year-old woman against her daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter. The FIR was registered on the basis of an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. The elderly woman in the complaint accused her family members of usurping her property including money, gold and silver.After reading the FIR, the Court observed that none of the offences alleged were made out and yet the magistrate had directed registration of FIR.“Qua the order of the CJM, directing the registration of FIR, no doubt, his approach reveals adherence to the procedure as envisaged under section 175, ibid. However, the order doesn't elaborate on any analysis or discussion of the material presented before him. Neither does his order record any satisfaction as to how the examination of the police report withstands the judicial rigor,” it added..Calling it a rubber-stamp decision, the Court said criminalising a family dispute is a complete judicial oversight.“Section 175(3) BNSS has been invoked with no reasoning given for its application. The decision for registration of FIR is heavily reliant on the police's initial findings. A proactive approach by asking for supporting documentation would have ensured procedural fairness/any miscarriage of justice and judicial independence rather than point blank acceptance of police version,” it observed.On the merits of the allegations, the Court said refusal to repay the money and return the gold or silver ornaments allegedly lent by the 72-year-old to her family members do not constitute a criminal offence.“On the other hand, the allegations only show that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioners is purely civil in nature, which has been given the colour of criminality in the complaint forming the basis of the FIR,” it added, while quashing the FIR..The Court emphasized that criminal courts must not serve as tools for personal vendettas or to gain unwarranted advantages. “To sum up, in family disputes triable by Magistrates, especially those involving close relatives, magistrates should strive to nurture an environment conducive to preserving and strengthening familial bonds,” the Single Judge said.Further, the Court said that amicable resolution of disputes not only benefits the immediate parties involved but also safeguards future generations from the adverse impact of lingering animosities. .Advocates Chetan Prakash Soni and Sarita Soni represented the petitioners.Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh Rajpurohit represented the State.[Read Judgment]
