Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1372 (MP)

Maniram Shakya v. State Of M. P.

2014-10-27

B.D.RATHI

body2014
ORDER : The instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1162/2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior. 2. Brief facts that would emerge from the FIR, dated 18-1-2009 are that the complainant/respondent No. 4-Smt. Priyanka and Rajeev Shakya (petitioner No. 3 herein), who happened to be son of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Maniram Shakya and Smt. Munnidevi fell in love and so both left their respective houses and performed marriage as per their own volition and against the wishes of their parents in Arya Samaj Mandir at Jaipur on 30-11-2005. Out of the said wedlock, one female child was born. It is mentioned in the FIR by the complainant that since her parents were not agreed to their marriage, her father lodged the report against the petitioners in Police Station Janakganj. Thereafter, the complainant along with her husband came back to Gwalior and after recording the statements of the complainant and her father in the Court, her father expressed not to prosecute the case against the petitioners and eventually the case was closed with the consent of the parties. Immediately after end of the matter, the complainant stated that the petitioners started raising demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and one motorcycle and for non-fulfilment of their demands, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. Ultimately, on 17-1-2009, the complainant along with her child were turned out from the matrimonial home on the pretext that she had not fulfilled the demand. Hence, she lodged the report against the petitioners on the basis of which a Crime No. 7/2009 was registered against the petitioners for committing the offence under section 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code out of which Criminal Case No. 1162/2009 is pending before the Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition inter alia submitting that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intentions with a view to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true, even then, on their face value they do not disclose prima facie commission of the offence against the petitioners. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true, even then, on their face value they do not disclose prima facie commission of the offence against the petitioners. Hence, on these premises, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the relief claimed for may be granted in favour of the petitioners. 3. Controverting the arguments aforesaid, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/complainant, submitted that the FIR and the initial depositions of the witnesses prima facie disclose commission of the offence alleged and therefore, the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed. Apart that after recording the evidence of both the sides, matter has been closed by the trial Court for final hearing as per order dated 20-6-2011. It is also contended by the Counsel that because of stay order dated 2-6-2011 passed by this Court, the judgment could not be pronounced by the trial Court. 4. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for parties, the entire case has been examined. 5. On the question of the inherent powers of the High Court preserved in section 482 of the Code, it is well-settled that where the FIR and other material including in the charge-sheet do not disclose any offence, or the proceedings are initiated mala fidely then it amounts to abuse of the process of Court and the criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court under inherent powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code and at that juncture the Court is not required to go into the evidence of the witnesses recorded during trial. 6. Keeping in view the principles discussed above, after perusal of the facts as mentioned in the First Information Report, this Court finds that it was specifically mentioned by the complainant in the FIR lodged on dated 18-1-2009 that in the first week of December, 2008, she was subjected to ill-treatment by the accused-petitioners and soon after closure of the proceedings on compromise they started raising demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and one motorbike and on account of non- fulfilment of their demand, since the beginning of first week of December, 2008, she was made subject to cruelty. 2,00,000/- and one motorbike and on account of non- fulfilment of their demand, since the beginning of first week of December, 2008, she was made subject to cruelty. It was further mentioned that on 17-1-2009, she was ousted by her husband-petitioner No. 3-Rajeev Shakya by giving threatening that if in future, she fails to satisfy their demands, then the accused would end her life by setting her at fire. 7. Hence on perusal of the facts mentioned in the written FIR, it is clear that prima facie allegations were made against the petitioners by the complainant-respondent No. 3 with due explaining the circumstances as to how and in what manner she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that prima facie case is made out to connect the accused-petitioners with the offence alleged to have been committed by them. Apart that the record indicates that the trial in the matter has already been completed and the final verdict is likely to come forward, which is possible only when the trial Court would be set at free to pronounce the same. In such a situation, the petitioners are left with liberty to raise all the objections/defences sought to be pleaded in the petition before the trial Court and the trial Court is expected to consider the same in proper perspective and decide the case in accordance with law. 8. Subject to above, the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. Copy of this order be sent to the concerning Court for compliance.