Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1145 (MP)

SUTANJAY SAXENA v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-11-02

ALOK ARADHE

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Sajid Ullah Khan, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Heard. 2. In this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners seek quashment of the First Information Report lodged against the petitioners for offences under section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition, briefly stated are that admittedly the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2 who filed petition under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court on 26-3-2012. The summons of the suit were served on the respondent-wife, pursuant to which, she entered appearance on 9-5-2012 and sought time to file written statement. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed First Information Report at Police Station, Damoh for offences under section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, who are her husband, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The respondent No. 2 sent a private vehicle with the police and got the petitioners arrested and thereafter they were taken to Damoh. The Police insisted on production of mother-in-law and she was also arrested. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. On 19-8-2014, the respondent No. 2 was cross-examined in the Family Court. In paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 of her statements, she admitted that she had not filed any complaint prior to 9-5-2012 and filed same on 13-5-2012. It is further admitted by her that she got complaint typed on 9-5-2012 which was undated and subsequently "13-5-2012" was put as date on the complaint and the same was prepared by her counsel. It is also admitted by her that after filing of First Information Report she sent the police personnel in private car and got the petitioners arrested. For the facility of reference paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 are reproduced below :- 5. Thus, from the statement made by the respondent No. 2 herself it is evident that First Information Report was filed as counter blast of the proceeding under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act. For the facility of reference paragraphs 11, 12 and 15 are reproduced below :- 5. Thus, from the statement made by the respondent No. 2 herself it is evident that First Information Report was filed as counter blast of the proceeding under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act. It is also pertinent to mention that in the proceeding under section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act the decree has already been passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 on 2-2-2015. Thus, even if the allegations made in the first information report are taken to be correct at their face value, the same are of omnibus in nature and, therefore, no offence under section 498-A/34 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 6. It is well settled in law that power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of court. A First Information Report can be quashed only when the allegations made in the First Information Report, if taken on their face value, do not disclose any offence. [See: Homi Rajvansh vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2014) 12 SCC 556 ]. It is equally well settled that at the stage of consideration of application for quashment of the proceeding, the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided by the High Court. [See: Rishipal Singh vs. State of U. P., (2014) 7 SCC 215 ]. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of F.I.R. amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed. C.C. as per rules.