Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 621 (MP)

Raghvendra Dixit v. State of M. P.

2015-06-17

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.814/14 for the offence punishable under section 498A/34 of IPC and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. 2. As per prosecution case, a written report was lodged by the complainant Charu Sharma alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Ashish Goswami on 6th February, 2013 at Radhika Palace, Morena. In the marriage, on the demand of accused persons, her father had given Rs.11 lacs and other articles in dowry. After marriage, the applicant, who is maternal uncle (Mama) of Ashish, and other co-accused used to harass her and demand Rs. two lacs more. The husband of the complainant Ashish also slapped the complainant for that. When the complainant told this fact to her father, her father came to Ashoknagar and gave Rs. one lac to Ashish and his mother. On 10th February, 2013 the complainant, her husband and Devar came to Mumbai. The complainant also alleged that when she went with Ashish to Kerala, he attempted to push her in the sea. It is further alleged that she came to know that Ashish is having relations with one lady. Her husband Ashish and Devar used to make pressure on her to go to Morena and harass her. At Mumbai Ashish, his mother and sister took her to an advocate and forcibly got her signatures on some papers. After some time, all of them returned to Ashoknagar. Thereafter, Ashish called the father of the complainant and forcibly sent her to Morena. The complainant earlier made a complaint in the month of October, 2013 in the S.P. Office and thereafter a conciliation proceeding was started, but it was also failed as the accused persons demanded a car in dowry. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No.814/2014 was registered against the applicant and others for the offences as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner for demand of dowry. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No.814/2014 was registered against the applicant and others for the offences as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner for demand of dowry. In addition, he further submitted that petitioner is the maternal uncle (Mama) of the complainant's husband and he does not come within the definition of relative as defined under section 498A of IPC, therefore, he cannot be tried for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and prayed for allowing the petition by quashing the FIR against the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not the relative of complainant Charu Sharma's husband as defined in section 498A of IPC, has no substance. Although relative has not been defined in the penal code, but in Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (Vol. 4, 3rd Edn.) the word “relative” means any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. 7. What is blood relation, can be summarized as under : “Definition : A person who is related to another by birth rather than by marriage. Prerequisites : To remember easily the relations may be divided into two sides as given below: 1. Relations of Paternal side : 1. Father's father-Grandfather 2. Father's mother- Grandmother 3. Father's brother-Uncle 4. Father's sister-Aunt 5. Children of uncle- Cousin 6. Wife of uncle- Aunt 7. Children of Aunt- Cousin 8. Husband of aunt- Uncle 2. Relations of Maternal side : 1. Mother's father-Maternal grandfather 2. Mother's mother- Maternal grandmother 3. Mother's brother- Maternal uncle 4. Mother's sister- Aunt 5. Children of maternal uncle- Cousin 6. Wife of maternal uncle- Maternal aunt 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid definition of relative, it is crystal clear that petitioner, who is the maternal uncle of the husband of complainant Charu Sharma, having blood relation with husband Ashish. Mother's mother- Maternal grandmother 3. Mother's brother- Maternal uncle 4. Mother's sister- Aunt 5. Children of maternal uncle- Cousin 6. Wife of maternal uncle- Maternal aunt 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid definition of relative, it is crystal clear that petitioner, who is the maternal uncle of the husband of complainant Charu Sharma, having blood relation with husband Ashish. To understand the position, for an example marriage cannot be performed between brother's and sister's, son and daughter respectively because of blood relation, hence, it is crystal clear that petitioner being maternal uncle of husband of the complainant, having blood relation and comes within the definition of relative. 9. So far as the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they are also without any substance because there is specific allegation stated in the FIR and statements of witnesses against the petitioner for demanding dowry. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there is prima facie sufficient evidence available against the petitioner to proceed under section 498A of IPC and sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 11. Consequently, this petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed. .................