ORDER : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out from the Crime No. 192/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this case are that on 04/11/2017 complainant/non applicant no. 2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this case are that on 04/11/2017 complainant/non applicant no. 1 Ekta Chahar lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal which reads as under:- ^^eSa efgyk Fkkuk Hkksiky es lmfu- ds in ij inLFk gwa Qfj;kfn;k Jhefr ,drk pkgj ifr ;ksxsUnz flag pkgj mez 31 lky fuoklh e-u- 50 QkÃu ,osU;w Qsl 1 u;kiqjk dksykj jksM Hkksiky us fnukad 4@11@17 dks Fkkuk mifLFkr vkdj Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; ds uke ij ,d vkosnu vius ifr] ;ksxsUnz flag pkgj] llqj yky flag pkgj] lkl lRrks pkgj] tsB eksgu flag pkgj] tsBkuh vatyh flag pkgj }kjk ngst dh ekax dks ysdj 'kkjhfjd o ekufld #i ls izrkfM+r djus ds laca/k esaA is'k fd;k gS ftldh tkap ij vijk/k /kkjk 498,] 34 Hkknfo] dk ik;k tkus ls dk;e dj foospuk esa fy;k x;k udy vkosnu i= fuEukuqlkj gSA izfr Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh efgyk Fkkuk Hkksiky] fo"k; % ifr] ;ksxsUnz flag pkgj] llqj yky flag pkgj] lkl lRrks pkgj] tsB eksgu flag pkgj] tsBkuh vatyh flag pkgj }kjk ngst dh ekax dks ysdj 'kkjhfjd o ekufld #i ls izrkfM+r djus ds laca/k esaA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd eSa Jhefr ,drk pkgj ifr ;ksxsUnz flag pkgj mez 31 lky fuoklh e-u- 50 QkÃu ,osU;w Qsl 1 u;kiqjk dksykj jksM Hkksiky fuosnu djrh gwa fd esjh 'kknh fnukad 01@06@2009 dks ;ksxsUnz flag pkgj firk yky flag pkgj fuoklh ch 58 iscy cs gksEl ckx eqxfy;k eqy fuokl fofn'kk ¼e-iz-½ ds lkFk lkekftd jhfr fjokt ds gqÃ Fkh 'kknh esa esjs firk us x`gLFkh dk lHkh lkeku o uxn lk i10 SPORTS dkj ¼lk s ekjihV djrs Fks ekufld izrkM+uk nsrs jgs gSa dgrs gS rqEgs NksM+ nwaxk rqe ikxy gks vkSj esjs cPps dks Hkh esjs f[kYkkQ esjk ifr HkM+dkrk gSA dgrk gS rsjh ek¡ ikxy gS esjk cPpk gksus ds ckn lu~ 2011 esa esjh rfc;r [kjkc gks xÃ rks xk;=h gkWfLiVy jryke esa esjs ifr us bykt djk;k Fkk esjs firk us bykt ds iSls fn;s Fks ogka jryke esa esjs firk us lekt ds yksxksa dks cqykdj esjs ifr o mlds ifjtuksa dks le>kÃ'k nh Fkh mu yksxksa us esjh fcekjh dks ysdj esjs firk o lekt ds yksxksa ds lkeus Hkkjh gaxkek fd;k Fkk MkWDVj us fnekx laca/kh dksÃ rdyhQ ugha crkÃ Fkh bykt ds ckn ifr ds ikl jgh fQj 2013 esa esjh vka[k esa rdyhQ Fkh rks eSaus esjs ifr ls eq>s MkWDVj dks fn[kkus dks dgk Fkk ijUrq mUgksaus ugha fn[kk;k esjs firk ds ?kj Hkst fn;k esjs firk us esjh vka[k dk Ãykt djk;k Fkk o ltZjh gqÃ Fkh s lkFk ysdj esjs ifr ds ?kj jryke tkdj esjs ifr dks lksus dk czslysV nsdj vk;s eq>s muds ikl NksM+dj vk;s mlds ckn dqN 'kkafr gqÃ Fkh ijUrq dqN fnu ckn fQj esjs ifr eq>s ijs'kku djus yxs eSa esjs ifr ds ?kj ij gh Fkh ekg eÃ 2017 eSa esjs ifr dk LFkkukarj.k Hkksiky gks x;k esjs ifr fdjk;s ds edku esa isCcy cs ch 58 es jgrs gS ifr ds lkFk yxHkx nks ekg jgh esjk ifr mlds ekrk firk HkkÃ vkSj HkkHkh eq>s 'kkjhfjd vkSj ekufld #i ls izrkfM+r djrs Fks vkSj fnukad 10@07@17 dks esjs ifr us eq>s ekjihV dj ?kj ls ckgj fudky fn;k ?kj es rkyk yxk fn;k eSa vius cPps ds lkFk ckgj ikdZ es cSBdj firk dks Qksu yxkÃ esjs firkth ds lkFk mudh dkj esa cSBdj dsoy ,d tksM+s diM+s esa cPps ds lkFk firk ds ?kj 50 QkÃu ,osU;w vk xÃ firk ds ?kj ij gwa eSa vius ifr o mlds ifjtuksa dh ekufld izrkM+uk ds dkj.k eSa ekufld #i ls vkgr gqÃ ftldk Ãykt djk;k Fkk vkosnu nsrh gwaA dk;Zokgh pkgrh gwa dk;Zokgh dh tkosaA** 3. On that police registered Crime No. 192/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC against the applicants and after investigation filed charge-sheet against the applicants before the learned JMFC Bhopal. Being aggrieved from that applicants have filed this petition for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out from the Crime No. 192/2017 registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No. 1 is the husband of non-applicant no. 1, applicant No. 2 Lal Singh Chahar is father-in-law; applicant No. 3 Smt. Satto Chahar, mother-in-law; applicant No. 4 Mohan Singh Chahar, brother-in-law (Jeth) and applicant No. 5 Smt. Anjali Singh is sister-in-law (Jethani) of the non-applicant no. 1 Ekta Chahar. The marriage of the non-applicant no. 1 was solemnized with Yogendra on 01/06/2009, and thereafter, Ekta and Yogendra lived in Ratlam where Yogendra used to work. Applicant No. 4 Mohan Singh Chahar works with IFFCO TOKIO company. From 03/04/2012 to 26/05/2017 he was posted at Nagpur and resided there along with his wife Smt. Anjali Singh applicant No. 5. Likewise, applicant No. 2 Lal Singh Chahar, applicant No. 3 Smt. Satto Chahar resided at Vidisha. So they had no occasion to harass the complainant Smt. Ekta Chahar who lived at Ratlam with her husband during the relevant period. 5. He further submitted that in the FIR only allegation against the applicants No. 2 to 5 is that they mentally and physically harassed the complainant, but in the FIR there is no specific act attributed to the applicants No. 2 to 5 to show how they mentally or physically harassed the non-applicant No. 1 Ekta Chahar. So on the basis of such vague allegations, no offence is made out against the applicants No. 2 to 5. The marriage of the non-applicant No. 1 was solemnized with the applicant No. 1 Yogendra Singh Chahar in the year 2009. It is alleged that the applicants used to harass the complainant from 2010 while the complainant lodged this report in the year 2017 as a counterblast because applicant No. 1 filed a divorce petition against her which clearly shows that complainant lodged a false complaint against the applicants. It is alleged that the applicants used to harass the complainant from 2010 while the complainant lodged this report in the year 2017 as a counterblast because applicant No. 1 filed a divorce petition against her which clearly shows that complainant lodged a false complaint against the applicants. So criminal proceedings arising out from the Crime No. 192/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC be quashed. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706. 6. Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant No. 2 as well as learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 opposed the prayer and submitted that from the FIR offence under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC is clearly made out against the applicants. Before lodging the report, the complainant had also filed complaints against the applicants in various forums regarding the behaviour of applicants, so it cannot be said that complainant lodged a false report against the applicants because applicant No. 1 Yogendra Singh Chahar filed a divorce petition against her. It is further submitted that after investigation of crime, charge sheet has already been filed by the police and on that charge sheet RCT No. 9916475/2017 was registered which is pending before JMFC, Bhopal. In that case, charges have already been framed against the applicants by the trial court, so criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 7. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for both the parties. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 held as under:- "The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint. The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sections 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." Apex Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 relied upon by the learned counsel of the applicants also reiterated the same view. 8. It transpires from the above pronouncements of the Apex Court that High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash an FIR when the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and/or Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint. 9. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint. 9. If we examine the instant case in the light of above pronouncements of the Apex Court, it appears from the record that on the report of non applicant No. 1 police registered Crime No. 192/2017 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet has already been filed by the police and on which RCT No. 9916475/2017 was registered which is pending before JMFC, Bhopal. In that case charges have already been framed against the applicants by the trial court. 10. In the FIR it is clearly mentioned that in the month of May, 2010 at the time of ceremony of the non-applicant No. 1's newly born child held at Vidisha, applicants No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- from the father of the non-applicant No. 1. It is also mentioned that when the non applicant No. 1 resided at Ratlam with her husband applicant No. 1 Yogendra Singh Chahar, applicants No. 2 to 5 used to come there and tell her that her father gave less dowry upon which her husband used to beat her. It is also mentioned in the FIR that in May, 2020 non-applicant No. 1's husband was transferred to Bhopal. Thereafter she resided with her husband at Bhopal. At that time also applicants No. 2 to 5 also mentally and physically harassed the complainant. In the case diary statements of Smt. Nishibala and Hari Kishan, parents of the non-applicant No. 1, it is mentioned that applicants used to tell Ekta that her father gave a small car in the wedding instead of a big car. In 2016 when applicant No. 1 bought a house, applicant no. 2 demanded two lakhs rupees. When it was denied, applicants started harassing the complainant. Applicant No. 2 to 4 asked applicant No. 1 to expel the non-applicant No. 1 from the house. In 2016 when applicant No. 1 bought a house, applicant no. 2 demanded two lakhs rupees. When it was denied, applicants started harassing the complainant. Applicant No. 2 to 4 asked applicant No. 1 to expel the non-applicant No. 1 from the house. Applicant No. 2 to 5 used to tell that they would get applicant No. 1 married a second time, that their boy was an officer, his marriage has not been solemnized according to his status, less dowry has been given in his marriage. Due to the harassment of applicants, the complainant became a victim of depression. 11. From the document produced by applicant No. 4 Mohan Singh Chahar himself it appears that in the May, 2017 applicant No. 4 was transferred to Bhopal from Nagpur which shows that since then applicants No. 4 & 5 has been residing at Bhopal. So looking to the allegations mentioned in the FIR that when the non applicant No. 1 resided at Ratlam with her husband applicant No. 1 Yogendra Singh Chahar, applicants No. 2 to 5 used to come there only on the basis that that applicant No. 2 and 3 resided at Vidisha and applicants No. 4 & 5 earlier resided at Nagpur while the complainant resided with her husband applicant No. 1 Yogendra Singh Chahar at Ratlam and later at Bhopal, it cannot be said that applicants No. 2 to 5 had no occasion to harass the complainant. 12. Facts of the case Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants does not match with the present case. In that case Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings only against the sister and brother of the husband because there were no allegations against them in the FIR except casual reference of their names in the FIR. While in this case in the FIR and case diary statements of prosecution witnesses specific allegations against the applicants regarding demand of money and harassment are mentioned. So this judgment does not assist the applicants. 13. As mentioned above, in the FIR and the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses specific allegations are mentioned against the applicants regarding demand of money and harassment. So this judgment does not assist the applicants. 13. As mentioned above, in the FIR and the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses specific allegations are mentioned against the applicants regarding demand of money and harassment. Only on the basis that the complainant lodged this FIR after 7 years of her marriage, after filing of the divorce petition by the applicant No. 1, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the complainant lodged a false report against the applicants. Veracity of the allegation made by the complainant in her report cannot be ascertained at this stage by evaluating the allegations on merits because it requires evidence to decide. 14. From the allegations prima facie offence under section 498A of IPC is made out against the applicants. So the criminal proceedings arising out from the Crime No. 192/2017 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC. cannot be quashed. Hence petition is dismissed. The applicants are at liberty to raise all their pleas before the Trial Court at appropriate stage.

Yogendra Singh Chahar v. Ekta Chahar