Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 147 (MP)

Aakash Chouhan v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2024-02-05

MANINDER S.BHATTI

body2024
ORDER : This is a petition by the petitioner seeking quashment of First Information Report No. 680 dated 20-9-2019 registered at Police Station Chhola mandir, district Bhopal and Charge-sheet dated 4-11-2019 for offences under section 498-A, 323, 294 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 after long relationship, entered into wedlock on 12-3-2019. Petitioner No. 2 is sister of petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 3 is husband of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 5 is also another sister of the present petitioner and petitioner No. 4 is husband of petitioner No. 5. Petitioner No. 6 is mother of petitioner No. 1. 3. It is contended by the counsel that after the marriage respondent No. 2 was not inclined to reside with the petitioner as according to respondent No. 2 she was uncomfortable in residing with the family members of the husband and, therefore, this aspect was admitted by the respondent No. 2 in the proceedings which were conducted by the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. The counsel while taking this Court to proceedings of Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, contained in Annexure A-2, submits that the real cause which ultimately ensued in lodging F.I.R against the petitioners is to be unearthed while taking into consideration the conduct of the respondent No. 2. It is also contended by the counsel that an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by petitioner No. 1 against the respondent No. 2. The said application was allowed and a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed. Later on as despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, when the respondent No. 2 failed to cohabit with the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application under section 13, Hindu Marriage Act and the said application has also been allowed and there is a decree of dissolution of marriage. It is thus contended by the counsel that taking into consideration the aforesaid, it is evident that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated. It is thus contended by the counsel that taking into consideration the aforesaid, it is evident that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated. Counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on decision of Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 , Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of U. P. and another, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153 and order dated 13-6-2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in Anita Rai vs. State of M. P., M.Cr.C No. 48916 of 2021 has sought quashing of First Information Report No. 680 dated 20-9-2019 registered at Police Station Chhola mandir, district Bhopal and charge-sheet dated 4-11-2019. 4. Counsel for the respondent State submits that present petition deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty and the First Information Report reflects specific allegation against all the petitioners. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case the main aspect of the matter is that in the matrimonial house two married sisters of the petitioner No. 1 are residing along with their husbands. It is contended by the counsel that all the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have mentioned their residence at Hamukhedi, Dewas Road, District Ujjain in cause title. It is also submitted by the counsel that proceedings of the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra also reflect that the married sisters of the petitioner No. 1 along with their husbands are residing in the same accommodation. It is contended by the counsel that while keeping in view this aspect of the matter if the allegations levelled in the F.I.R are subjected to scrutiny the same would reveal that there are specific allegations of cruelty while mentioning the specific dates on which the complainant was subjected to cruelty. Hence, submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard submissions and perused the record. 6. In the present case, on account of disputes after the marriage, the F.I.R has been lodged by the complainant. The petitioners are questioning the F.I.R on the ground that the complainant was not willing to reside in the matrimonial house and the complainant was willing to reside with her husband if the married sisters were shifted to some other accommodation. In the present case, on account of disputes after the marriage, the F.I.R has been lodged by the complainant. The petitioners are questioning the F.I.R on the ground that the complainant was not willing to reside in the matrimonial house and the complainant was willing to reside with her husband if the married sisters were shifted to some other accommodation. The quashment is being also sought on the ground that there are two decrees; one under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was not complied with by the respondent No. 2/complainant and also there is a decree of divorce in favour of petitioner No. 1 which has been passed on the ground of cruelty. So far as decree of divorce is concerned, the same reflects that the complainant was proceeded ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. So far as F.I.R is concerned, if the allegations are perused carefully, same would reveal that the complainant as well as petitioner No. 1 met in November, 2015 and remained in affair for a period of four years and later on their marriage was solemnized on 12-3-2019. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R that the complainant not even for a period of 10 days was treated properly and was subjected to manhandling and cruelty on the alleged demand of dowry. The F.I.R reflects that an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was taken by the petitioner No. 1 as dowry and later on again amount was being demanded. On 5-5-2019 dowry was demanded from the complainant and when complainant expressed her inability she was beaten up and was kept in a room which was locked from outside. Her mobile phone was also snatched by the petitioners. At around 12 at night she was ousted from the house. The complainant then called her elder sister Nilam who took the present complainant to her parent’s house. On 1-9-2019, when the complainant went to the residence of her husband along with her parents, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5, who have been specifically named, misbehaved with the parents of the complainant and they were also abused and manhandled by the present petitioners. It is further mentioned that on 15-9-2019 the petitioner No. 1 came to the house of the father of the complainant and demanded dowry and again committed Marpeet with the complainant. 7. 1 to 5, who have been specifically named, misbehaved with the parents of the complainant and they were also abused and manhandled by the present petitioners. It is further mentioned that on 15-9-2019 the petitioner No. 1 came to the house of the father of the complainant and demanded dowry and again committed Marpeet with the complainant. 7. Thus, a perusal of F.I.R reveals that the complainant has specifically mentioned the dates on which she was subjected to cruelty. The complainant has also specifically mentioned the incident dated 5-5-2019 and 1-9-2019. So far as incident dated 1-9-2019 is concerned, they have leveled allegation against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5. The testimony of the parents of the prosecutrix also support the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R as regards incident dated 1-9-2019, there are specific allegations against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 and there is no reference of petitioner No. 6 regarding incident dated 1-9-2019. The allegations have been levelled against all the petitioners but as regards incident dated 1-9-2019 the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have been specifically named. It is further evident from the perusal of proceedings of Parivar Paramarsh Kendra that petitioner No. 2 and 5 are married sisters of petitioner No. 1 and they are residing in the same accommodation along with their husbands. Therefore, so far as the allegations which are levelled against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. However, so far as the petitioner No. 6 is concerned, as she has not been specifically named as regards incident dated 1-9-2019 in the F.I.R and even the proceedings of Parivar Paramarsh Kendra do not refer to petitioner No. 6, this Court is of the view that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner No. 6. The factum of omnibus and general allegations against the family members have been taken into consideration by the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar (supra). Therefore in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, so far as petitioner No. 6 is concerned, as there are omnibus and general allegations, the impugned charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings initiated on the strength of FIR No. 680/2019, Police Station Chhola Mandir district Bhopal in respect of petitioner No. 6 stands quashed. 8. The present petition in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 stands dismissed.