Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 200 (MP)

Reeta Sharma v. State of M. P.

2014-02-13

B.D.RATHI

body2014
ORDER 1. By invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') seeking the relief to quash the entire FIR registered at crime No.209/2013 at Police Station Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and prayer for quashing the subsequent proceedings has also been made. 2. As per accusation of prosecution, marriage of respondent No.2 Priyanka was solemnized on 13-04-2012 with petitioner No.3 Saurabh Sharma, on the date of marriage on a false affidavit signature of father of complainant was forcibly taken by the petitioners. It was alleged that when the complainant reached at her matrimonial home she was subjected to cruelty and beaten by the petitioners on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. The entire story was narrated by the complainant to her sister Amrita and thereafter, complainant went to her paternal home with Amrita at that time it was stated by the petitioners that only on fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs.2 lakh she will be permitted to enter into her matrimonial house. After sometime on account of compromise, the complainant went to matrimonial home where again she was subjected to cruelty. Thereafter, complainant went to her paternal home. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of CJM Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the case was registered as Criminal Case No.535/13. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the instant case FIR was lodged by the complainant on 06-04-2013 while prior thereto neither any police complaint was made by the complainant nor any private complaint was preferred by her before any Court despite having ample opportunities as according to FIR she went twice in her paternal home. It was also submitted that prior to this FIR, an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by petitioner No.3/husband on 4th September, 2012 before learned District Judge, Shivpuri for restitution of conjugal rights. In that case, on 04-02-2013 respondent No.2 appeared and as a counter blast of that proceedings, present FIR has been lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2. 5. In that case, on 04-02-2013 respondent No.2 appeared and as a counter blast of that proceedings, present FIR has been lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2. 5. It was also submitted by Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners that if the FIR is taken into consideration in its entirety, no case is made out against the petitioners. Omnibus allegations were levelled in the FIR. Date of incident, date and time of alleged beating was not disclosed, therefore, the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed in view of the judgments of this Court dated 01-08-2013 passed in M Cr C No.2145/2013, 20-02-2013 passed in M Cr C No.9759/2012 and 27-09-2013 passed in M Cr C 6810/2012. 6. Combating the submissions of petitioners' learned counsel, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the prayer on the ground that the arguments advanced by petitioner's counsel may be considered by the trial Court on merits. The allegations made in the FIR shall be proved before the trial Court by producing the evidence, therefore, at this stage, FIR may not be quashed. 7. After taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, entire material available on record has been perused. 8. It is trite law that if the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the name accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. 9. The apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 has held as under : “9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention to the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. 9. The apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 has held as under : “9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention to the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.” 10. In this case also from perusal of FIR, it is clear that only omnibus allegations were made by the complainant. No specific date, time and place was mentioned in the FIR. Apart that it cannot be subsided that even after availability of ample opportunities, neither any FIR was lodged by the complainant nor any private complaint was filed by her before any Court. This FIR lodged on 06-04-2013 is a counter blast of application filed by petitioner No.3/husband before the District Judge, Shivpuri for restitution of conjugal rights on 4th September, 2012. 11. Keeping in view the above discussions and proposition of law and facts narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court vested under section 482 of the Code to prevent the abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the FIR registered at crime No.209/2013 at Police Station Shivpuri for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed and subsequent proceedings in the shape of Criminal Case No.535/2013 is also hereby quashed. Petitioners are discharged of the charges punishable under section 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.