Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 415 (MP)

Rachna Ahirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-03-10

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - By invoking the inherent power of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioner seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No. 178 of 2019 by Police Station Gulabganj, District Vidisha for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as quashment of charge-sheet and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom. 2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that complainant -respondent No.2 Smt. Sharmila Ahirwar submitted a written complaint at Police Station Gulabganj, District Vidisha on 24/10/2019 to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with one Pankaj Ahirwar on 23/06/2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals and after eight months of her marriage, she was being mentally and physically tortured by her husband as well as family members of her in-laws for non-fulfilment of dowry demand i.e. motorcycle and gold ornaments. Thereafter, the complainant became pregnant and a Counselling was being taken place at Family Counselling Centre, Vidisha but the matter could not be solved. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other in-laws used to torture her by mentally as well as physically. On 01/09/2019, the complainant gave birth to a child in her parental house and seventeen days after death of her newly-born child, her in-laws family did not come to bring her back to her maternal home, even after getting information. On the basis of complaint, aforesaid FIR was registered against petitioner and two others, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC. Matter was investigated and statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed charge-sheet before the Court of JMFC, Vidisha. Hence, this petition. 3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the registration of impugned FIR is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. There are material contradictions and omissions in the contents of the complaint as well as in the impugned FIR. There are no independent witnesses in the incident and only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is contended that as per the MLC report, no injury was found on the body of the complainant. There are no independent witnesses in the incident and only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations, petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is contended that as per the MLC report, no injury was found on the body of the complainant. The police station concerned is lack of territorial jurisdiction to investigate matter as no part of cause of action arose at the place where complaint or impugned FIR has been lodged. It is the duty of the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering the complaint or FIR, but the same has been lodged with mala fide intention of the complainant merely to harass and pressurize the petitioner. In absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner, it would be unjust that the relative of complainant's husband should be forced to undergo trial only on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. In support of the contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Ors, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022 on 8th February, 2022 as well as the judgment passed in Dr. Virendra Kumar and Another vs. State of MP and Another, reported in 2015(1) MPLJ (Crl.) 695. It is further contended that the petitioner is mother-in-law (Mausiya Sas of complainant) and the complaint should be proceeded only against husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of a woman complainant and not against anyone else. In support of the contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ashish Dixit & Others vs. State of UP and Another passed in CRA No.43 of 2013 on January, 2013. It is further contended that the Court can quash the criminal proceeding where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/ her due to private and personal grudge. In support of the contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the matter of Sharda Devi vs. State of MP, reported in 2009(3) MPLJ 610. On these grounds, it is prayed that impugned FIR as well as charge-sheet and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated thereof, deserve to be quashed. 4. In support of the contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the matter of Sharda Devi vs. State of MP, reported in 2009(3) MPLJ 610. On these grounds, it is prayed that impugned FIR as well as charge-sheet and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated thereof, deserve to be quashed. 4. Countering the contentions made by petitioner, it is submitted by State Counsel that from the averments made in the impugned FIR as well as in the complaint which corroborate from the oral and documentary evidence collected by IO during investigation, culminating into filing of the charge sheet against three persons including present petitioner, it is clear that allegations are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against petitioner although she is not real mother-in-law of complainant. Her involvement is duly established and so far as the contention of petitioner that she had never tortured either physically or mentally to the complainant in order to fulfil the demand dowry is concerned, the veracity and genuineness of the same can be tested in trial Court and this Court cannot quash complaint/FIR as well as the charge-sheet. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 5. I have considered the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of present petition. 6. Scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR/charge-sheet and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent the abuse of process of any Court otherwise to secure the ends of justice, were set out in detail in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) 335) as under:- "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 Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. 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 Section 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. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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." 7. Similarly, this Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate evidence of proceedings u/S. 482 of the Code, because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies either in the FIR or the complaint or in statements of the witnesses, is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of the evidence and the same can be gone into by Magistrate concerned during trial when entire evidence is adduced by the parties. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs The State off Andhra Pradesh passed on 21st January, 2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019 has observed that the Court does not have to delve deep into probative value of the evidence regarding charge. It has only to see if a prima facie case has been made out. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs The State off Andhra Pradesh passed on 21st January, 2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 1934 of 2019 has observed that the Court does not have to delve deep into probative value of the evidence regarding charge. It has only to see if a prima facie case has been made out. The veracity of deposition or the material is a matter of trial and not required to be examined while framing charge. It was further observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that the veracity and genuineness of deposition made by the witnesses is a question of trial and need not be determined at the time of framing of charge. Appreciation of evidence on merit is to be done by the Court concerned only after the charges have been framed and the trial has commenced. However, for the purpose of framing of charge, the Court needs to prima facie determine that there exists sufficient material for commencement of trial. 9. It is settled principle of law that this Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed u/S 482 of CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings. If prima facie a case is made out disclosing ingredients of offences alleged against accused, the Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings. It is needless to observe that perusal of impugned FIR and the materials collected by the IO on the basis of which, the charge sheet has been submitted, makes out a prima facie case against accused at this stage and there appears to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. On perusal of FIR as well as statements of witnesses goes to show that prima facie case for the alleged offence is made out against the petitioner. Although the present petitioner is the mother-in-law {Mausiya Sas of the complainant) but there is specific allegation against her regarding torturing of complainant in regard to demand of dowry. This Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of proceedings u/S. 482 of CrPC because whether there are contradictions and/or inconsistencies either in the alleged FIR or the complaint or in statements of the witnesses, is an essential issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Magistrate concerned during the trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. However, in the present case, the said stage is yet to come. 10. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as allegations levelled against petitioner and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above, at this stage, I do not find any justification to quash the impugned FIR or charge-sheet or proceedings initiated against petitioner arising out of same crime. This Court, at this stage, is not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine either the correctness or genuineness of the impugned FIR or the complaint or statements of the complainant. Hence, this petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 11. Before parting with this order, this Court feels it appropriate to issue a word of caution that the observations in this order have been made by the Court considering the limited scope of interference. The learned Court below is expected to expedite the trial strictly according to the evidence which would come on record without getting prejudiced by any of observations made by this Court in this order.