Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 328 (MP)

Kailash Singh v. State of M. P.

2019-04-16

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This MCrC has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of Criminal Case No. 4135/2018 arising out of Crime No. 328/2018 registered at police Station, Madhoganj, Distt. Gwalior, under the provisions of sections 420, 406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. 2. Brief case of the petitioners is that complainant/respondent No. 2 filed one FIR on 18.4.2018 registering Crime No. 153/18 at police Station, Madhoganj, alleging that between 22.3.2018 and 18.4.2018 petitioners had harassed the complainant and tortured her for want of dowry. It was alleged that on 14th March complainant ran away from her house and performed marriage with Karan Singh at Orchha temple as their affair was going on for the last two years, but since 16th March she has been framed in a conspiracy inasmuch as at the instance of family members of Karan Singh she reached Gwalior along with Karan Singh on 17th March, 18. Thereafter, Karan Singh was made to disappear by his family members and he was not staying with the complainant at her flat but was staying at his parents house and used to visit only for the sake of formality at about 12 mid-night and used to leave her house in early hours of the day and when she got disturbed because of such conduct of Karan Singh, then she approached his family members when his uncle Anoop Singh, his father Kailash Singh and his grand-mother abused her and demanded Rs. 10 lac and a Swift Desire car for taking her husband back. This has caused a lot of agony to her, but when Karan Singh did not return for 3-4 days, then on 17th April, 18 at about 11.30 pm, she visited house of Karan Singh where grand-mother of Karan Singh beat her and again raised demand for dowry of Rs. 10 lac and a car. 3. Investigation was carried out as per the report lodged by the complainant on 18.4.2018 and in this investigation, report dated 6.6.2018 was submitted by SHO Madhoganj, in which it has also come on record that prior to marriage also Karan Singh had harassed her both physically as well as economically and mortgaged her gold to obtain loan of Rs. 1 lac. She got him a gold chain, a ring and a mobile phone worth Rs. 1 lac. She got him a gold chain, a ring and a mobile phone worth Rs. 40,000/- which she is demanding back and because of nonreturn of such items has lodged report on 18.4.2018. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of similar allegations another report has been lodged by the complainant registering Crime No. 328/18 in which charge-sheet has been filed by the police before the Court under the provisions sections 420, 406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. It is submitted that on the same subject matter two FIRs have been lodged just to harass the petitioners, namely Kailash Singh and Anoop Singh. It is submitted that allegations which have been made in regard to mortgaging jewellery of the complainant or to seek return of gold chain, ring and mobile phone which were purchased by the complainant for her husband, are specifically related to Karan Singh and not to the present petitioners. It is further submitted that there are no documents on record to show that any of the jewellery items which are subject matter of the complaint were handed over to the present petitioners. The jewellery which has been mortgaged was having gross weight of 59.4 grams and net weight of 57.846 grams and such items were pledged on 31st July, 2017. Learned counsel submits that according to the complainant, their marriage was performed in March, 2018 whereas jewellery was pledged by Karan Singh prior to such date. There is no involvement of present petitioners in either pledging of such jewellery or receiving such jewellery as items of dowry prior to performance of marriage of the complainant with their son/nephew Karan Singh, and therefore, they have been falsely implicated and no case under sections 420, 406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC is made out against the present petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that there are two different transactions one pertaining to dowry and another pertaining to cheating, and therefore, two cases have been rightly registered against the petitioners. 6. When confronted that when transaction in relation to mortgaging of jewellery and obtaining of loan etc. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that there are two different transactions one pertaining to dowry and another pertaining to cheating, and therefore, two cases have been rightly registered against the petitioners. 6. When confronted that when transaction in relation to mortgaging of jewellery and obtaining of loan etc. had taken place prior to lodging of the first report on 18.4.2018, then what prevented the complainant from making it a composite transaction and why such matter as was reported to the police could not have been brought before the concerned Magistrate for seeking appropriate directions under the provisions contained in section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., then after arguing for some time, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that liberty be reserved in favour of the complainant to raise such issue before the concerned Magistrate by moving an appropriate application. 7. After going through the record and hearing the arguments, it is apparent that present petitioners have been prima facie implicated for offences under sections 420, 406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC for certain transactions which took place prior to marriage of their son Karan Singh with complainant. They were not knowing the complainant prior to such marriage and there was no relationship of daughter-inlaw and father-in-law/uncle-in-law prior to such marriage, and therefore, since they were not a party to the transaction of mortgaging of such gold jewellery and were not aware as to whom such jewellery belongs, they have been falsely implicated. In view of such material on record, it is apparent that they have been falsely implicated in a case under sections 420, 406, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. Prima facie no case is made against the present petitioners, therefore, FIR registering Crime No. 328/18 as far as these two petitioners are concerned is quashed and criminal proceedings against present petitioners, namely Kailash Singh and Anoop Singh, are quashed, however, liberty is reserved in favour of the complainant to move an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate where charge-sheet has been filed in relation to Crime No. 153/18. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.