Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 20 (MP)

Syed Hasan Ali v. Aashi Ahmad

2019-01-04

VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J. This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. RT 10054/2015, pending before the JMFC, Bhopal for the offences under section 294, 323 and 498-A of the IPC. 2. Facts of the case in short are that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal, in which, after recording the evidence of respondent under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., the criminal case was ordered to be registered being RT No.10054/2015 on 15.9.2015, for offences punishable under sections 294, 323 and 498-A of the IPC and ordered for issuance the summons against the petitioners for their appearance before the Court of JMFC. 3. Being aggrieved by that registration, the petitioners filed this petition on the ground that cause of action as disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, arose from 21.8.2005 to 7.4.2007 and pleaded that cause of action continued thereafter, but she has not mentioned anywhere that after 7.4.2007 she was harassed by the petitioners. The complaint has been registered for offences under sections 294, 323 and 498-A of the IPC. The maximum punishment for offence under section 498-A of the IPC is three years. After the last cause of action, the complainant filed complaint in the year 2015. As per the provision of section 468 of the Cr.P.C., cognizance can be taken within three years. Hence, the Court below has committed error in taking the cognizance overlooking the point of limitation. The petitioners have further submitted that there is no sufficient evidence relating to harassment, misappropriation of property and uttering the filthy words, even then, the Court has registered the case for offence under sections 294, 323 and 498-A of the IPC. Hence, it is prayed that proceeding of aforesaid RT be quashed against all the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial Court has registered the case after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record against the petitioners. No infirmity or illegality has been committed by the trial Court in the impugned order. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial Court has registered the case after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record against the petitioners. No infirmity or illegality has been committed by the trial Court in the impugned order. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of documents filed along with this petition and copy of complaint vide Annexure-P/2, the cause of action as disclosed by the complainant arose on 7th April, 2007. In the statement recorded under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant specifically stated that she was living along with her husband and children and the petitioners expelled them in the year 2005. Gulroz Ahmad, husband of the complainant has been examined as witness No.2, who stated that he had married the complainant on 21.2.2002. The petitioners demanded the dowry from his wife by keeping him in a locked room for one month, he was rescued with the help of neighbours. He further stated in para 9 that in the October, 2013, when he was suffering from brain hemorrhage and got admitted in the Suditi Hospital, all the petitioners ousted his wife and children from the house. As per statement recorded under section 202 of the Cr.P.C., husband of the complainant has specifically stated that the petitioners were demanding dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of this demand, the petitioners started harassing him and also his wife and children. The petitioners also started to torture them physically. 6. Considering the date as mentioned in the statement of Gulroz Ahmad, last cause of action arose in the month of October, 2013. The cognizance was taken by the Court of JMFC vide impugned order dated 15.9.2015. It is under limitation as prescribed in section 468 of the Cr.P.C. because case is registered under sections 294, 323 and 498-A of the IPC. 7. The cognizance was taken by the Court of JMFC vide impugned order dated 15.9.2015. It is under limitation as prescribed in section 468 of the Cr.P.C. because case is registered under sections 294, 323 and 498-A of the IPC. 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 15.9.2015, it emerges out that the complainant filed the complaint under sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 324, 354, 354-A and 342 read with section 34 of the IPC and after recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C., the Court of JMFC has not found any reason to dismiss the complaint under section 203 of the Cr.P.C. and proceeded further by invoking the provision of section 204 of the Cr.P.C. and issue the summons against the petitioners. The petitioners have not appeared before the trial Court to agitate their part. 8. It is the discretion of the Court whether to act upon the report under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. received from the police and proceed to enquire into the matter and recording of the evidence under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate is not satisfied with the report, he can record the evidence under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. No illegality is found in not considering the report filed under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the above discussion and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on record, this Court do not find any reason to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No.RT 10054/2015. 10. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.