Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1448 (MP)

Mansingh v. State of M. P.

2014-11-10

ALOK VERMA

body2014
ORDER 1. This application is filed under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of charge-sheet arising of Crime No.569/2013 registered at police station – Annapurna, Indore under section 498A, 3/4/6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The applicants are father and mother of Vikramsingh Bhadoriya, to whom, respondent No.2 /complainant in the aforementioned criminal case was married on 17.5.2007. Vikramsingh Bhadoriya is an NRI and working in USA. After their marriage, complainant Sonalisingh was left behind in India while Vikramsingh took her mother/applicant No.2 with him. Thereafter, the complainant also went to USA. A dispute arose between the husband and the wife. It is alleged that the present applicants who are presently living in India in Indore, started harassing the complainant immediately after her marriage to their son Vikramsingh Bhadoriya. According to the applicants, they feared that the complainant would implicate them in false criminal case and therefore, they also informed the police authority about their fear. However, finally the complainant came back to India in the year 2011 and started living with her mother. After six years of her marriage, she lodged the FIR in question on 14.8.2013, on which, the crime was registered against the present applicants and also their son Vikramsingh Bhadoriya. 3. By this application, the present applicants pray for quashment of the said FIR on the ground that it was registered on false allegation. The amount of ticket to USA was paid by their son and the amount was debited from the account of their son in the Bank of Maharashtra. It is also false that the complainant had no knowledge that their son married to another woman and was a divorcee, when he married to the complainant. The certificate of marriage clearly mentions the status of their son as divorcee and therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant had no knowledge of his marital status at the time of marriage. 4. He further assert that according to the complainant, harassment started in the year 2007, however, the present FIR was lodged after six years, which clearly shows that it is only afterthought. The criminal proceedings were initiated only to harass the present applicants and their son. The Investigating Officer also did not take into account the written complaint submitted by the present applicants stating apprehension of false implication in the present case. The present FIR is only to harass them. The criminal proceedings were initiated only to harass the present applicants and their son. The Investigating Officer also did not take into account the written complaint submitted by the present applicants stating apprehension of false implication in the present case. The present FIR is only to harass them. Accordingly, they pray that the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom, may be quashed. 5. Learned P.L supported the investigation and prays that the present application be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2013) SCC ( Cri) 120, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the allegation should be specific and there should be disclosure of active involvement of the accused, where large number of family members were included in the FIR by mentioning their names, but the contents did not disclose their active involvement, cognizance against them would not be justified. If cognizance is taken against them, this would amount to abuse of judicial process. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Dashrath P. Bundela and others v. State of M.P. and another Reported in ILR (2011) M.P. 2923. 7. In the present case, however main defence of the present applicants appears to be that they were living separately from his son. However, there are specific allegation against applicant No.2 that she was living with her son when the complainant was also in USA with her husband. There are specific allegation against applicant No.2 and also applicant No.1/father-in-law. Merely because, the complainant waited almost six years for filing of the complaint, it cannot form the sole ground for quashing of the proceedings against the present applicants. 8. Taking various contents of the FIR and other related documents, I find that no case is made out for exercising the powers vested in this Court under section 482 of CrPC. This application is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Harshwardhan Pathak for petitioner; Ms. Mamta Shandilya, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.