Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 22 (MP)

Vipin Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-01-11

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

body2021
JUDGMENT : Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J. Heard through Video Conferencing. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR of Crime No. 5/2020 registered at police Station Nayagaon, District Satna for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 25/12/2019 deceased Laxmi Patel committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. It is alleged that the applicants Vipin Singh and Shubham Patel, brothers-in-law (dever), Geeta Devi, mother-in-law, co-accused Mathura Prasad Patel, father-in-law and Ashok Veer Vikram @ Vivek Patel husband of the deceased demanded Rs. 10-12 Lakhs, assaulted her and used to harass her, due to which deceased Laxmi Patel committed suicide within three years of her marriage. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the offence. It is further submitted the applicants resides separately from the deceased and there is no evidence on record to show that soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty so no offence under Section 498-A, 304B/34 of IPC is made out against the applicants hence FIR be quashed. He also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer. 5. This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (supra) relied on by the learned counsel of the applicant 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 Cr.P.C. 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." 6. It transpires from the above pronouncement 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 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. 7. In the FIR and case diary statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is clearly mentioned that applicants Vipin Singh, Shubham Patel, brothers-in-law (dever), Geeta Devi, mother-in-law, co-accused Mathura Prasad Patel, father-in-law and Ashok Veer Vikram @ Vivek Patel husband of the deceased demanded dowry and used to harass the deceased due to which deceased Laxmi Patel committed suicide within seven years of her marriage. At this stage, this court has no power to ascertain the veracity of their statements by evaluating their statements on merits. At this stage, this court has no power to ascertain the veracity of their statements by evaluating their statements on merits. From the FIR, prima facie offence under Section 498-A, 304B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is clearly made out against the applicants so there is no question to quash the FIR. Hence, petition is dismissed.