Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 408 (MP)

Dharmendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-03-09

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Petitioner is calling in question the impugned FIR, bearing Crime No.51/2021 registered at Manila Police Station Gwalior by which offence has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 498A, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that respondent No.2 submitted a written report before Mahila Police Station Gwalior on 04/02/2021 to the effect that she got married with petitioner on 13/04/2012 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged therein that petitioner and her other in-laws, who are persistently making demand for dowry and ill-treating her in regard to amount of Rs.2 lac due to which, present complaint has been lodged and on the basis of said complaint, aforesaid offence has been registered against petitioner and her other in-laws. Being aggrieved the impugned FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner along with his brother and father had never harassed the complainant and there is no specific allegation against petitioner in regard to demand of dowry. It is further contended that there is an illicit relationship of complainant with another person and the complainant does not want to live with her husband. Earlier, a Habeas Corpus petition was filed, seeking a divorce from the complainant as both complainant and her husband are living separately since 06/01/2019 and there is no marital relationship between the complainant and her husband and complainant earlier has not only stated before the Court but also before concerning Superintendent of Police by filing an application that; she doe not want to live with her husband and wants to live with one Sanjay Parmar. It is further contended that neither there is direct or indirect involvement of petitioner in the said crime in any manner. Counsel for the petitioner contended that complainant has mala fidely lodged aforesaid false and fabricated FIR and the same deserves to be quashed and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others, vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Others, reported in 1990 SCR Supl.(3) 259. 5. Bhajanlal & Others, reported in 1990 SCR Supl.(3) 259. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the State as well as complainant supported the impugned FIR and submitted that the FIR discloses that the matter has to be investigated by the police authority and at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against petitioner. The petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased, is of not causing any harassment or cruelty with the complainant is false. From the contents of impugned FIR, it is clear that there is specific allegation of demand of dowry against the husband and complainant was mentally as well as physically harassed by her husband and her other in-laws and this fact has also been narrated by complainant in her Police Case Diary statement. Under these circumstances, the entire matter is only at a premature stage and the investigation has not proceeded with except some preliminary efforts taken from the date of registration of case. The evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and placed before the Court on the basis of which alone the Court can come to a conclusion one way or the other on the plea of mala fides. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made maliciously, the investigation will say so. At this stage, even if there are only allegations but no evidence, the Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials at present available. Therefore, it cannot be said that complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fides. No case is made out for quashment of the impugned FIR. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of present petition. 6. Heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record as well as documents available on record. 7.. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of record, it is noticed that marriage between the petitioner and the complainant is not in dispute. The petitioner, who is husband of the deceased, in his objection raised a ground that there is an illicit relationship between his wife with another person but such sand of petitioner would not vitiate criminal proceedings u/S. 498A of IPC. The petitioner, who is husband of the deceased, in his objection raised a ground that there is an illicit relationship between his wife with another person but such sand of petitioner would not vitiate criminal proceedings u/S. 498A of IPC. Having regard to the catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be quashed on the mere plea that there is an illicit relationship of his wife with another person. The second ground of attack of petitioner is that prima facie there is no material available on record to make out offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. The impugned FIR as well as the document reflects that not only petitioner, who is the husband of the complainant, has been implicated in the matter but his parents have also been implicated in the matter. So far as living of the complainant with another person is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the cruelty or harassment in regard to demand of dowry may be mental or physical in nature and it is a question of fact which must depend on evidence of parties in trial. In present present matter, living of the complainant with another person is usually preceded either means of marital dispute or unpleasantness or any cause whatsoever. 8. Be that as may be. So far as the submission of petitioner that his wife is living as per his wishes with another person is concerned, the petitioner has to prove this fact by adducing cogent and convincing evidence in defence before trial Court. In the case at hand, a role has been attributed to the petitioner in regard to harassment and cruelty on his wife either physically and mentally for demand of dowry. The factual aspect of matter in regard to living of complainant with another person can be established only after adducing defence evidence. This factual aspect cannot be evaluated and appreciated during proceedings under Section 482 of Code. Section 482 of the Code is prefaced with an overriding provision and the statute saves inherent power of High Court as a superior Court to make such orders as are necessary to prevent an abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Section 482 of the Code is prefaced with an overriding provision and the statute saves inherent power of High Court as a superior Court to make such orders as are necessary to prevent an abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers and it only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. Where the allegations made in FIR/complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie constitutes an offence or make out an offence against the accused, no ground is made out for quashment of the same. 9. I also gives a note of caution to the effect that power of quashing of criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR or complaint and that extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. 10. As discussed above, the powers possessed by High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court, being the highest Court, should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing criminal proceedings at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar.]. 11. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing criminal proceedings at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar.]. 11. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When an information is lodged at police station and an offence is registered, then mala fides of informant or complainant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during investigation and evidence led in the Court which decides fate of accused. The allegations of mala fides against informant or complainant are of no consequence and cannot, by themselves, be the basis for quashing the criminal proceedings. [See Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi.]. 12. Reverting to the present matter, the allegations made in FIR or the complaint, in my considered opinion, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of case and an investigation thereon and this case does not fall under any one of categories of cases formulated above calling for exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the impugned FIR. It is settled principle of law that the evidence produced by accused in his defence can be looked into by the Court below and not at this stage. Further, it is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering petition filed under Section 482 of Code for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is clear from that if prima facie a case is made out disclosing the ingredients of offence alleged against the accused, then Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. It is clear from that if prima facie a case is made out disclosing the ingredients of offence alleged against the accused, then Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint. Thus, if the allegations made in F.I.R. are considered in its entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in F.I.R or the complaint against the petitioner do make out a prima facie case. Accordingly, no case is made out for quashment of the impugned FIR registered at Manila Police Station, Gwalior. 13. Petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly.