Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 238 (MP)

Amit Kumar Soni v. State of M. P.

2011-02-18

M.A.SIDDIQUI

body2011
ORDER : (1) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No. 451/2010 registered by Police Station- Gadarwara, District- Narsinghpur for alleged offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also the subsequent proceedings. (2) In brief, the prosecution case is that petitioner no.1 Amit Kumar Soni is the husband, Anand Kumar Soni petitioner no.2, is father-in-law and petitioner no.3 Smt. Sangeeta Soni is wife of elder brother of petitioner no.1 Amit Kumar Soni, Jethani of respondent no.2 Smt. Poonam Soni. (3) Undisputedly, marriage of respondent Smt. Poonam Soni took place in the year 2006 at Katni and she resided in her nuptial house at Katni. As dispute arose, respondent Smt. Poonam went to reside in her maternal house at Gadarwara, District- Narsinghpur. Petitioner Amit Soni filed a case for divorce under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act on 18.5.10 in District-Katni for which respondent Smt. Poonam was served notice on 13/07/10 and on the next day she lodged FIR at Gadarwara Police Station for which Gadarwara Police Station registered Crime No. 451/10 under Section 498- A/34 IPC and Section 3/4of Dowry Prohibition Act, and afterwards filed challan. It is alleged that as per FIR, the cruelty and demand of dowry took place at Katni and nothing was done at Gadarwara, so Gadarwara Court has no jurisdiction and falsely report has been lodged in order to harass the petitioner, so this FIR be quashed. (4) Respondent no.1 is a formal defendant and respondent no.2 Smt. Poonam defended the case. It is submitted on her behalf that though FIR contains no cause of action at Gadarwara, but FIR is not the alone thing. As per statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of respondent Smt. Poonam, petitioner no.1 and 2 came at Gadarwara and demanded Rs.One Lac and motor cycle and said that if the demand is not fulfilled, she will not be taken back to Katni, and they after leaving her at Gadarwara went away. (5) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that as per FIR, no case is made out so proceedings should be quashed. She submits that it is crystal clear that after filing the case for divorce, a false case has been registered to harass the petitioners and to take revenge from them. (5) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that as per FIR, no case is made out so proceedings should be quashed. She submits that it is crystal clear that after filing the case for divorce, a false case has been registered to harass the petitioners and to take revenge from them. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Bhura Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 2008 SC 2666 in which it has been held for the purpose of Ss.177 and 178 of Cr.P.C. that if all alleged acts as per complaint relating to offence under Section 498- A IPC took place in State of Punjab, complaint filed in Court in State of Rajasthan where complainant residing with her maternal relations, no cause of action arose in Rajasthan, then the Magistrate at that place had no jurisdiction to deal with the said matter. But, as per above discussion, as per statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of respondent Smt. Poonam, the demand and harassment also took place at Gadarwara when she was left by petitioners no.1 and 2 and was threatened that if demand of dowry of Rs. One Lac and motor cycle is not fulfilled, then she will not be taken back to Katni and they left her at Gadarwara, so above ruling has no application in the instant case. (6) As far as allegations in the FIR are concerned, whether they are genuine or fake has still to be decided. As far as exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are concerned, according to Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another (2005) 1 SCC 122 the Apex Court held that inherent jurisdiction, though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in S.482 Cr.P.C. Power to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of process of Court, but should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. If on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant, it appears that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, the proceedings cannot be quashed as they are to be enquired into by the trial Court. (7) Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that no case is there against petitioner no.3 as there is no specific allegation against her. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 3363 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that where no specific allegations in complaint are there against appellants, sister-in-law and unmarried brother-in-law of complainant, then complaint is liable to be quashed. But in the case in hands, according to FIR and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Poonam, there is specific allegation that petitioner no.3 Smt. Sangeeta Soni is the lady to whom the allegation is that she is having illicit relations with petitioner no.1 Amit Kumar Soni and she used to tease and threaten respondent Smt. Poonam Soni. (8) So, looking to the above circumstances of the case, I find no ground to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. Petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. ***********