Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 482 (MP)

Rohit Kasera v. State of M. P.

2021-06-07

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2021
ORDER Shrivastava, J. -- 1. In this petition, under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court seeking quashment of the FIR registered as Crime No.529/2020 at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under section 498 A/34 of IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings including Criminal Case No.1471/2020 pending before JMFC, Guna, District- Guna (M.P.) 2. The petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2/complainant. 3. Prosecution story, in short, is that respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Guna (M.P.) to the effect that she was married to petitioner No.1 on 13.10.2018 in accordance with hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, her father had given some dowry to the petitioners. After 15 days of marriage, petitioner No.1 came to the parental house of the respondent No.2/complainant for taking her along with him. After passage of about one and half month, the petitioners and their relatives started demanding of Rs.2,00,000/- and one four wheeler in dowry and stated that if demand is fulfilled then he will take her with him. With these allegations, the FIR has been registered at Crime No.529/2020 for the above said offences. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that primarily the FIR in question is illegal & arbitrary and continuance of criminal proceedings based thereon is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is submitted by the petitioner No.1 that he had filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In reply, the respondent No.2/complainant failed to fulfill her matrimonial obligations and as a counter -blast to the above said application, has filed the instant FIR with a view to pressurize the petitioners. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State opposed the prayer on the ground that FIR reveals harassment and demand made by the petitioners. It is not a fit case for quashment of FIR. Moreover, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. Charges have also been framed. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not a fit case for quashment of FIR. Moreover, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. Charges have also been framed. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court, vide orders dated 2.3.2021 and 15.3.2021, had directed both the parties to remain personally present before this Court to explore the possibility of amicable settlement in the matter. On 24.32021, both the petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No.2/wife were present in person before this Court and matter was taken up in- camera proceeding in the chamber where they stated that they want to live together but on account of trivial issues sometimes, it becomes difficult to live together. Thereafter, some time was granted both the parties to explore the possibility of amicable settlement and file an appropriate application under section 320 of CrPC for compromise but both the parties have not filed the application for compromise till date, therefore, matter is taken up to be decided on merits. 8. Section 498A of the IPC reads as under :-- “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” A bare perusal of the above provision, especially the explanation of the term cruelty elicits that the same is divided in two categories. The first is willful conduct of such nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger of life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman whereas the second category is harassment with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 9. In the case of State of Harayana and others v. Ch. 9. In the case of State of Harayana and others v. Ch. Bhajanlal and others [(1992 SCC (Cri) 426)], guidelines have been provided where the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be exercised which reads thus:- (a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2)of the Code; (c) 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; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) 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. 10. On the anvil of the aforesaid provision and precedent if the FIR is seen, it would show that mere general and omnibus allegations have been leveled against the petitioners and his family members and the same are not sufficient to compel them to face the ordeal of trial. 10. On the anvil of the aforesaid provision and precedent if the FIR is seen, it would show that mere general and omnibus allegations have been leveled against the petitioners and his family members and the same are not sufficient to compel them to face the ordeal of trial. No specific date, time and place has been mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, it would be clearly an abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically implicate the names of accused persons on the basis of such an FIR and make them undergo trial, unless of course the FIR would have disclosed specific allegations persuading the Court to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons. It is a settled principle that if the FIR does not disclose commission of offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law. 11. The apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti [ (2009)10 SCC 184 )] has held as under :-- “9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.” 12. In view of the above and as indicated above, it is clear that only omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. No specific date, time and place were mentioned in the FIR. The prosecution launched against the petitioners is an abuse of process of Court and, therefore, in terms of decision of apex Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), the FIR in question registered as Crime No.529/2020 at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Guna (M.P.) is hereby quashed. All consequential proceedings including those pending as Criminal Case No.1471/2020 before JMFC, Guna, District- Guna (M.P.) also stands quashed. 13. The petition, accordingly, stands allowed. 14. Copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. 15. No order as to cost.