Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 421 (MP)

Ramkumar Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-03-11

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.- Petitioners have filed this petition u/S 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet in connection with Crime No.16 of 2021, registered at Police Station Joura, District Morena for offence u/S. 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated in connection with RCT No.77/2021 pending before the Court of JMFC, Joura, Morena. 2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that the respondent No.2 lodged an oral complaint at police station Joura alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with Awadhesh Sharma on 10th July, 2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Gopalpura. At the time of marriage, her father had given sufficient dowry as per status. After marriage, her husband Awadhesh Sharma (herein petitioner No.3), mother-in-law Meera Sharma (herein petitioner No.2), father-in-law Ramkumar Sharma (herein petitioner No.1), brother-in-law (jeth) Hridesh Sharma (herein petitioner No.4), sister-in-law (jethani) Smt. Aarti Sharma (herein petitioner No.5) started demanding dowry of four wheeler. On that, she told that her father is a very poor person and is not able to fulfil the said demand. Thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment with regard to demand of four wheeler and "marpeet" was committed with her and on 01/08/2020, her in-laws dropped her at Joura Bus-stand and since then, she is living in her parental house. On the basis of oral complaint made by respondent No.2 -complainant, a case was registered vide Crime No.16/2021 at PS Joura and after completion of investigation and other formalities, the police filed charge-sheet against petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court of JMFC took cognizance of said offence and proceedings were initiated in connection with RCT No.77/2021 pending before the said Court. Being aggrieved, present petition has been preferred. 3. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that even if the entire facts mentioned in the impugned FIR taken into consideration in its entirety, then prima facie no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC, therefore, to prevent the abuse of process of law, the entire proceedings may be quashed. 3. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that even if the entire facts mentioned in the impugned FIR taken into consideration in its entirety, then prima facie no case is made out against the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC, therefore, to prevent the abuse of process of law, the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further contended that the entire prosecution story as per FIR is doubtful and on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations, petitioners have been falsely implicated and prima facie, no case is made out against them. From the statements of complainant recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, it reflects that the spresent FIR is being of false implication in order to pressurizing the petitioners. It is further contended that there is delay of more than four months in lodging the FIR. Soon after marriage, petitioner No.1, 2 and 4 are living separately and there was a partition deed executed between sons of petitioners No.1 and 2 vide notification of memorandum in the daily newspaper on 04/11/2019 and since then, both the sons were living separately. It is the ill-will of complainant in order to grab the property and pecuniary benefit from her father-in-law and mother-in-law. After partition, the complainant did not return back to her in-laws house and preferred an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court and while deciding the said application, the statements of complainant were recorded and a compromise application was filed to settle the dispute and due to failure of reconciliation proceedings, the husband of complainant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. Notices were issued by various modes even by electronic mode but in order to avoid the same, the present counterblast FIR has been lodged by the complainant with an ulterior motive for pressurizing the petitioners wherein, there is no specific allegation against them for commission of alleged cruelty or demand of dowry, therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law and that would result in causing injustice to them. It is further contended that although charge- sheet in the matter has been filed in the matter, some evidence has also been recorded before the Trial Court, even then inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC can be invoked at any stage to prevent abuse of process of law. In support of contention, counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgments of Preeti Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand &d Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Satish Mehra vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, AIR 2013 SC 506 , Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat & Others (2011) 7 SCC 59 , Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2022 Live-law (SC) 141, Rashida Begum (Smt.) vs. Smt. Fatima Bano 2014(1) MPWN 29 and Ravikant vs. State of MP & Another, 2014 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 282 and also the order dated 18/08/2021 passed by Principal Seat of this Court in the matter of Abhishek Pandey alias Ramji Pandey & Others vs. State of MP &Others [CRR 521 of 2021]. 4. Countering the contentions made on behalf of petitioners, it is submitted by State Counsel as well as counsel for complainant that there is sufficient evidence available on record by which, cognizance has been taken against petitioners and after recording evidence of witnesses, charges have been framed but at any point of time, not a single proceeding was challenged by petitioners, not only this, but trial is at the fag end and this petition is liable to be dismissed. So far as the defence taken by petitioners that the husband of the complainant has already instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and after receiving notices, the impugned FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention is concerned, the same cannot be a good ground for quashment of proceedings and the grounds which have been raised by the petitioners are their defence, which can only be considered by leading evidence. At this stage, no case is made out for quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet and other consequential proceedings initiated against petitioners. In support of contention, respondents' counsel relied on the order dated 15/06/2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC 4058 of 2021 [Bhagwanlal Chhipa and Anr. Vs. At this stage, no case is made out for quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet and other consequential proceedings initiated against petitioners. In support of contention, respondents' counsel relied on the order dated 15/06/2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC 4058 of 2021 [Bhagwanlal Chhipa and Anr. Vs. State of MP] and the order dated 21/06/2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC 12338 of 2021 [Bhagwandas Panth & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Anr.]. 5. Heard the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and documents available on record. (6) Following questions of law require for determination of present petition:- (I) Whether the petition preferred by petitioners under Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR can be entertained when the trial has been started and evidence of some witnesses have also been recorded before the trial Court ? (II) Whether the evidence recorded by trial Court during trial, can be considered for quashment of FIR? (III) Whether any ground is available for quashment FIR or charge sheet in view of facts and laws available on record ? Regarding Question of Law No.(I):- 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the inherent powers can be issued at any stage to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It makes no difference whether trial has been started or not and whether some evidence has been recorded before the trial Court or not. In support of contention, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Joseph Salvaraja (supra). 7. Per contra, the respondents' counsel contended that at this stage, the present petition cannot be entertained otherwise meaning of trial shall demolish. At the time of framing of charges and afterwards when trial has been stated, the prayer for quashment of FIR was not made by petitioners and because of that no substance, present petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. On perusal of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraja (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is maintainable also even when the trial is at advanced stage. Therefore, this question is answered affirmatively in favour of petitioners. 8. On perusal of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraja (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is maintainable also even when the trial is at advanced stage. Therefore, this question is answered affirmatively in favour of petitioners. Regarding Question of Law No.(II) It is contended on behalf of the respondents that only the trial Court can appreciate the evidence of witnesses on merits at the initial stage and this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot assume jurisdiction either of the trial Court or the appellate Court and appreciate the evidence. Truthfulness, sufficiency or acceptability of evidence deposed in the Court can be judged only at the stage of trial and this Court is not supposed to embark upon enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of same would not sustain the accusation. 9. In view of settled principle of law laid down in the matter of Raman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 Cri.LJ 800 and in the matter of Ram Swarup Singh & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another, reported in 2006 Cri.LJ 4441, this Court is of the considered opinion that at the time of using inherent powers provided under Section 482 of Code, the evidence deposed before the trial Court during trial, cannot be looked into for the purpose of quashing the FIR. The only facts mentioned in the FIR and other material available on record produced along with charge sheet would be looked into for this purpose. This question is answered, accordingly. 10. Regarding Question of Law No.(III) In the light of parameters/ guidelines in regard to exercise of inherent powers u/S. 482 of Code while quashing FIR/charge sheet, stated in details by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Others, reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and on perusal of impugned FIR, it appears that only omnibus allegations have been made by the complainant, neither date nor time or place regarding the incident happened with her has been mentioned by her that as and when she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in regard to demand of dowry i.e. four wheeler. Prior to lodging the FIR, the complainant has neither given any report to police nor to anybody. On perusal of documents, it appears that since after marriage of complainant i.e. on 10/07/2019 a partition was executed between husband of complainant and brother- in-law (jeth) of complainant and since 02/11/2019, the complainant is living with her husband separately, therefore, no question of dropping complainant by her in-laws at Joura Bus stand on 01/08/2020 by which she is living in her parental house, is not made out. There is delay in lodging the FIR as the same was lodged on 08/01/2021 i.e. more than four months of the incident. After partition, the complainant did not return back to her maternal house and preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court and while deciding the said application, the statements of complainant were recorded and a compromise application was filed to settle the dispute and due to failure of reconciliation proceedings, the husband of complainant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. Notices were issued by various modes even by electronic mode but in order to avoid the same, the present counterblast FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive by complainant for pressurizing the petitioners wherein, there is no specific allegation against them for commission of alleged cruelty or demand of dowry, therefore, continuation of proceedings in the present matter against petitioners is clear abuse of process of law. It is settled principle of law that if FIR does not disclose commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. In the present matter also, from perusal of contents of FIR, it is crystal clear that only omnibus and vague allegations have been made by the complainant and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. Apart from the above, even after availability of ample opportunities, neither any FIR nor any private complaint was lodged by the complaint before any Court of law, as the impugned FIR has been lodged after delay of more than four months. 11. Apart from the above, even after availability of ample opportunities, neither any FIR nor any private complaint was lodged by the complaint before any Court of law, as the impugned FIR has been lodged after delay of more than four months. 11. In the light of aforesaid discussions and the proposition of law and facts mentioned above, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the entire facts mentioned in the impugned FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, prima facie, no offence is made out against petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned FIR vide Crime No. 16/2021, registered at Police Station Joura, District Morena is hereby quashed. Petitioners are discharged of charges levelled against them under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, meaning thereby other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated in connection with RCT No. 77/2021 pending before the Court of JMFC, Joura, Morena are hereby dropped. 12. As a sequel, this petition stands allowed. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as police station concerned for necessary information and compliance.