Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1074 (MP)

Sunil Saratkar v. State of M. P.

2016-11-25

VED PRAKASH SHARMA

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioners, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jetani) of Jyoti Saratkar (respondent No.2), have preferred this petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of first information report bearing crime No.0124/2016, Police Station- Mahila Thana, Indore, which has been registered on the basis of written complaint made by Jyoti Saratkar (respondent No.2). 2. ORDER 1. The petitioners, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jetani) of Jyoti Saratkar (respondent No.2), have preferred this petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashment of first information report bearing crime No.0124/2016, Police Station- Mahila Thana, Indore, which has been registered on the basis of written complaint made by Jyoti Saratkar (respondent No.2). 2. The written complaint made by Jyoti Saratkar (respondent No.2) to police runs as under: ^^fuosnu gS fd eSa T;ksfr mQZ la/;k ifr lqfuy ljkVdjk] mez 24 lky] fuoklh rkIrh okMZ] jsM jkst Ldwy ds ihNs] eqyrkbZ] ftyk cSrqy] gky eqdke 141@3 lsDVj&lh d'kokg uxj] bankSj esa jgrh gw¡ esjk fookg lkekftd jhfr&fjokt ls lqfuy firk lqHkk"k ljkVdj] fuoklh eqyrkbZ] ftyk cSrwy ds lkFk fnukad 6-5-2015 dks laiUUk gqvk FkkA esjs firk gfjHkkm }kjk lxkbZ esa 3 yk[k #i;s uxn esjs llqj lqHkk"k dks fn, Fks ,oa ifr dks lksus dh psu o v¡xwBh vkfn fn, FksA 'kknh esa ?kj xzgLFkh dk iwjk lkeku yxHkx 2 yk[k #i;s dk fn;k Fkk eq>s 'kknh ds pkj ekg rd Bhd j[kk esjh tsBkuh nhfidk ,oa tsB lq'khy tks bankSj esa jgrs gSa] Qksu ls esjs ifr dks HkM+dkrs gS fd blls 2 yk[k #i;s ekaxok gesa bankSj esa edku cuokuk gSA ugha ykrh gS rks blls ckr er djuk bls ijs'kku djuk esjs ifr muds dgus esa vkdj 'kjkc ihdj ekjihV djrs tc ;g ckr esjs llqj lqHkk"k] lkl lasorh ckbZ dks crkbZ rks mUgksaus dgk fd 2 yk[k #i;s ysdj vk rHkh j[ksaxsa] esjs ifr dks fl[kkrh bls cPps ugha gks jgs gSaA bls ek;ds NksM+ vk] eq>s dbZ MkDVjksa ds ikl ys x;s Fks MkWDVjks us isV esa xBku crkbZ Fkh] blls mijkar Hkh esjs ifr us eqyrkbZ cSrwy esa fookg 'kwU; djus dk ds'k yxk;k gS ml le; esa llqjky esa gh Fkh esjs firk dks dksVZ dk uksfVl fHktok fn;k vkSj mlesa fy[kok;k fd eSa llqjky esa ugha gw¡ rc esjs firk us ?kcjkdj fnukad 19-7-2016 dks ,l-Mh-,e- bankSj dksVZ ls lpZ okjaV fudyok;k vkSj Fkkuk ck.kxaxk iqfyl ds lkFk eq>s eqyrkbZ ls bankSj ysdj vk x, rc ls eSa esjs ihgj dq'kokg uxj esa gw¡A esjs tsB tsBkuh ds edku dh vksifuax esa 11 vizSy 2016 dks esjs ifr lkl&llqj tsB tsBkuh vk, vkSj cksys fd edku esa cgqr iSlk yx x;k gS blds bykt esa Hkh cgqr iSlk yx x;k gS 2 yk[k #i;s nks rHkh T;ksfr dks llqjky ys tk,axs lc us esjs ekrk&firk ds lkFk xkyh xykSt dj >xM+k fd;k vkSj pys x;s esjs ifr lqfuy] llqj lqHkk"k] lkl lsoarh ckbZ] tsB lq'khy o tsBkuh nhfidk us ngst esa 2 yk[k #i;s dh ekax o rykd nsus dh ckr ij ls eq>s 'kkjhfjd o ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r fd;k eSa bl lc ds fo#) dkuwuh dk;Zokgh pkgrh gw¡A** 3. The law with regard to quashment of FIR, which is by now well settled after the pronouncement of apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ], is that if, even after accepting all the allegations made in FIR at their face value, necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are not made out, then it will be a fit case for quashment of FIR. 4. Considered on the touch-stone of the above dictum of law, it is found that the allegations made in the aforesaid written complaint, if accepted in their entirety at their face value, prima facie necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under section 498A are made out. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case for quashment of FIR. 5. Accordingly the petition is dismissed in limine.