Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Roshni Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order reserved on 02.09.2022
Order delivered on 22.09.2022
Cr.M.P. No. 1747 of 2018
1. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Radhamohan Mishra,
aged about 36 years, R/o Quarter No. 47/6, Nehru Nagar
(West), Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
2. Smt. Snehlata Mishra, W/o late Radhamohan Mishra, aged
about 63 years,
3. Dr. Roshni Mishra, D/o late Radhamohan Mishra, aged
about 30 years,
4. Rakesh Mishra, S/o late Radhamohan Mishra, aged about
33 years,
Petitioners No. 2 to 4 are resident of house No. M.I.G. 2361,
Housing Board Colony, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Police Station
Jamul, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer,
Mahila Thana, Bhilai, Sector-6, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg
(C.G.)
2. Dr. Sapna Rani Mishra, W/o Rajesh Mishra, aged about
32 years, R/o Quarter No. 25/F, Street No. 30, sector-10,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner No. 1 :Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, appeared
in person
For Petitioners No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Manish Upadhyaya, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Wasim Miyan, PL
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.
Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2020
1. Dr. Roshni Mishra, aged about 31 years, D/o Late
Radhamohan Mishra
2
2. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, aged about 35 years, S/o Late
Radhamohan Mishra
Both 1 and 2 are resident of Present Address- H.I.G. 2361,
C.G. Housing Board, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Tahsil & Dist.
Durg (C.G.)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate,
Distt. Durg (C.G.)
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana,
Distt. Durg (C.G.)
3. Dr. Sapna Rani Mishra, aged about 35 years, W/o Mr.
Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Present Address Q. No. 25/F, Road-
30, sec 10, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Wasim Miyan, PL
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
ORDER [C.A.V.]
1. Since reliefs sought under both the petitions, filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C.")
pertains to Criminal Case No. 36794 / 2018 [State of Chhattisgarh v.
Rajesh Kumar Mishra & Others] pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Durg, which arise from FIR/Crime No. 09/2018
registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg (C.G.) for the offence
under Sections 498-A, 34 & 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity, "Act, 1961") are of like nature,
therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this
Common Order.
2. Cr.M.P. No. 1747 / 2018, arises out of aforesaid FIR, has been
filed by the petitioners for quashment of aforesaid FIR and consequent
Criminal Case No. 36794/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate,
3
First Class, Durg whereas Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2020 has been preferred
by the petitioners against an order dated 28.12.2019 passed by Second
Upper Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 273/2019
upholding the order dated 17.9.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Durg in aforesaid criminal case, whereby application under
Section 239 / 227 of the Cr.P.C. for getting discharge from the offences
under Sections 498-A, 34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity
"IPC") and Section 4 of the Act, 1961 was dismissed.
3. Facts
of the case, in brief, are that marriage of petitioner - Rajesh
Kumar Mishra was solemnized with complainant/respondent Dr. Sapna
Rani Mishra on 30th April, 2015. After few day of the marriage,
petitioners started harrassing her physically and mentally in connection
with demand of Gold and Rs. 10 lakh from her parents. The petitioners
also taunted about quality of articles bring by her from her parental
home. They also doubted upon her character. When petitioner - Smt.
Snehlata Mishra (Mother-in-law of complainant) ousted the
respondent/complainant and her husband, then they were residing in the
rented house at Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, District Durg, at that point
of time, mother of complainant had given huge amount to her husband,
from which various household articles were purchased, there also
petitioner - Rajesh Kumar Mishra subjected her to cruelty by abusing
and assaulting her. On 21.12.2017 when respondent/complainant was
working at her work place, then also, her husband went there and
abused her, snatched her purse and broken her pen drive. On being
complaint by respondent/complainant, Police did not lodge FIR and
gave intimation under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., hence on the very next
day i.e. 22.12.2017, respondent/complainant made written complaint to
the Superintendent of Police, Durg and based on that complaint, present
FIR bearing Crime No. 09/2018 was registered against the petitioners.
4. After usual investigation, aforesaid charge-sheet bearing Criminal
Case No. 36794/2018 was filed by the police, hence, petitioners filed
Cr.M.P. No. 1747 / 2018 for quashment of FIR and consequent charge-
sheet. After filing of charge-sheet, the petitioners filed an application
under Section 227 / 239 of the Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Durg for getting discharge, which was
dismissed. Against which Criminal Revision No. 273 / 2019 was filed by
the petitioners, which was also dismissed upholding the order passed by
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, hence, petitioners (in Cr.M.P.
No. 422 of 2020) have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. for setting aside the aforesaid order passed by both the courts
below and allowing their application under Section 227/239 of the
Cr.P.C.
5. It is not in dispute that petitioner-in-person i.e. Rajesh Kumar
Mishra is husband of respondent/complainant - Dr. Sapna Rani Mishra
whereas Smt. Snehlata Mishra is mother-in-law, Dr. Roshni Mishra is
sister-in-law and Rakesh Mishra is brother-in-law of complainant.
6. The petitioner-in-person and learned counsel for petitioners No. 2
to 4, while referring their written submissions, would submit that from the
perusal of written complaint and whole contents of charge-sheet,
necessary/requisite ingredients of framing charge under Section 4 of the
Act, 1961 and Sections 498-A, 34 & 323 of the IPC are missing, as it
has not been mentioned in the aforesaid documents that any demand of
dowry was made by the petitioners at or before the marriage, as
marriage consideration. Respondent/complainant and her mother have
stated in their police statements that at the time of marriage, her mother
has given various gifts to her in-laws as per her capacity, they have also
stated that when complainant and her husband shifted at Nehru Nagar,
Bhilai at rented house, at that time, mother of the complainant had given
various household articles, but they have not stated that any demand for
alleged articles had been made by the petitioners. It is further submitted
that the petitioners have never demanded any articles or gold or any
amount from respondent/complainant or her parents. Apart from that,
mere demand of dowry is not sufficient to bring home the aforesaid
offences. It is next submitted that as per complaint and statements of
witnesses, after 15th November, 2015 complainant and her husband
were residing separately from other petitioners in the rented house,
despite that other petitioners i.e. mother-in-law, sister-in-law and
brother-in-law have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further
submitted that FIR lodged by respondent/complainant is beyond the
limitation period, not only this, earlier she had made complaint against
her husband only for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC,
therefore, police gave her intimation under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C.,
thereafter, she had made written complaint to the Superintendent of
Police, Durg exaggerating the entire incident with malafide intention just
to harrass the petitioners. It is also submitted that respondent /
complainant was residing at her parental home much before lodging of
the FIR, therefore, petitioner/husband filed an application under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Family Court, Durg, thereafter, as a
counter blast respondent/complainant lodged present FIR just to score
personal vengeance and to take revenge by implicating all the family
members of her husband. Learned counsel for petitoiners No. 2 to 4
further submits that allegations levelled against mother-in-law, sister-in-
law and brother-in-law are balled allegations by making the omnibus
statements, no specific events or role played by them, have been
mentioned, despite that learned trial Court as well as revisional Court
have rejected their applications filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.,
hence, it is prayed that order impugned passed by both the courts below
may be set aside and considering the aforesaid facts, charge-sheet filed
by the police against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
7. Petitioner-in-person and learned counsel for petitioners No. 2 to 4
have placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme
Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta & another v. State of Jharkhand
and another 1, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State
of Bihar & others 2, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram &
others 3, and various other judgments, which they have cited in their
written submissions, in support of their version.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State while supporting
the charge-sheet and impugned order, would submit that all the
necessary ingredients are present against the petitioner, due to which,
the applications filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by the trial
1 (2010) 7 SCC 667
2 (2022) 6 SCC 599
3 (1995) 6 SCC 219
Court, hence, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as sought
for by them.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit
that it is settled proposition of law that for framing charges, truthfulness
of the facts narrated in the charge-sheet is not to be considered, only it
is to be seen that whether prima facie case is made out or not. It is
further submitted that by a long course of decisions rendered by the
Apex Court, it is settled that for the purpose of exercising power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIR or complaint, the High Court
would have to proceed entirely on the basis of allegations made in the
complaint and documents accompanying the same, per se, it has no
jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations,
as while exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the court
does not function as a court of appeal or revision and mini trial is not
supposed to be conducted by the High Court. He placed reliance upon
the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr. v. Akhil Sharda & others & Sanjeet Jaiswal v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & others 4 (common order) and Tarun Jit Tejpal v.
State of Goa 5 in support of his submissions.
10. Heard petitioner-in-person, learned counsel for the parties,
considered written submissions, case laws cited therein and perused
copy of charge-sheet and other material available on record with utmost
circumspection.
11. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it would be
appropriate to notice Sections 2 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
which read as under:-
"2. Definition of 'dowry', in this act, 'dowry; means any
property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectly:
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage;
or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other
4 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
5 LAWS (SC) 2019 8 79
person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the
marriage of said parties to whom the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) applies.
Explanation I.- [Omitted]
Explanation II.- The expression 'valuable security' has the same
meaning as in Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
4. Penalty for demanding dowry.- if any person demands,
directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or
guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any
dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two
years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special
reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than six months."
12. Thus, "Dowry", means, any property given or agreed to be given
by the parents of a party to the marriage at the time of the marriage or
before marriage or at any time after the marriage in connection with the
marriage.
13. In the case of Pawan Kumar & others v. State of Haryana 6,
Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope & ambit of
provisions of Act, 1961 observed in paragraph 16 as under :-
"16. ....... It is significant that Section 4 of the 1961 Act, was
also amended by means of Act 63 of 1984, under which it is
an offence to demand dowry directly or indirectly from the
parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride. The word
"agreement" referred to in Section 2 has to be inferred on the
facts and circumstances of each case. The interpretation that
6 (1998) 3 SCC 309
the appellant seeks, that conviction can only be if there is
agreement for dowry, is misconceived. This would be
contrary to the mandate and object of the Act. "Dowry"
definition is to be interpreted with the other provisions of the
Act including Section 3, which refers to giving or taking
dowry and Section 4 which deals with penalty for demanding
dowry, under the 1961 Act and the Indian Penal Code. This
makes it clear that even demand of dowry on other
ingredients being satisfied is punishable........."
14. Observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Pawan
Kumar (supra) was further reiterated & followed by the Apex Court in
case of State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal Asawa & another 7. Thus, it is
abundantly clear that definition of "dowry" is not restricted to agreement
or demand for payment of dowry before and at the time of marriage but
also includes demands made subsequent to marriage.
15. In the instant case, as per FIR & statement of witnesses , after
few days of marriage, respondent/complainant was subjected to cruelty
by saying that nothing was received in the marriage. It is further alleged
that she was also subjected to harrassment physically and mentally by
demanding gold and money. She has also stated in her statement that
when she was residing with her husband (petitioner No. 1) at Nehru
Nagar, Bhilai, there also her husband beaten her and threatened her by
demanding dowry and by saying that otherwise he will divorce her.
16. Although, in the instant case, it is not alleged that before or at the
time of marriage any demand of dowry was made by the husband or his
family members but it has been alleged in the FIR and statements of
witnesses that demand of dowry was made after the marriage and as
has been discussed above that definition of 'dowry' under the Act, 1961
also includes demands made subsequent to marriage. Therefore, in
view of dictum given by the Apex Court, contentions made on behalf of
the petitioners that, the provisions contained in Section 4 of Act, 1961
does not attract in the instant case, has no force in the eye of law.
7 (2004) 4 SCC 470
17. So far as allegation of offences under Sections 498-A & 323 of the
IPC against the petitioners are concerned, considering the increase of
such type of offences implicating all the relatives of husband only on the
basis of vague and omnibus type statement, Hon'ble Supreme Court
has cautioned the Courts to consider such type of cases very carefully
and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with
the matrimonial cases.
18. In case of Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti 8, their Lordships
of the Supreme Court held as under :-
"9. In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of
the sections and the language of those sections is not be
all and end 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.
10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly
vague. It does not show as to which accused has
committed what offence and what is the exact role played
by these appellants in the commission of offence. There
could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations
are made against him more precisely but he is no more
and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it
would be an abuse of process of law to allow the
prosecution to continue against the aged parents of
Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of
vague and general complaint which is silent about the
precise acts of the appellants."
19. In case of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand
and anothe r (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed
as under :-
"26. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd.
8 (2009) 10 SCC 184
Sharaful Haque & Another9 observed thus:-
"It would be an abuse of process of the court to
allow any action which would result in injustice
and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of
the powers, court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance
of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or
quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the materials to assess what the complainant has
alleged and whether any offence is made out
even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth
and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out
the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints.
The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real
truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious
in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial
cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required
to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."
20. In the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 10, Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as under :-
"4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial
disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is
greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC
was introduced with avowed object to combat the
9 (2005) 1 SCC 122
10 (2014) 8 SCC 273
menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her
husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is
a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a
dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are
used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.
The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his
relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number
of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of
the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are
arrested."
21. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. , their Lordships of the
Supreme Court has observed as under :-
20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also
in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court
should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial
dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:
"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders
of the family are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are
many reasons which need not be mentioned here for
not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose
their "young" days in chasing their cases in different
courts."
11 (2012) 10 SCC 741
The view taken by the judges in this matter was that
the courts would not encourage such disputes.
22. In the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana 12 , Hon'ble
Supreme Court also observed as under :-
"6.............The courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
23. Recently, in case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & others
v. State of Bihar and others 13, their Lordships of the Supreme Court
has held as under :-
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate
that this court has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the
increased tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as
well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when
no prima facie case is made out against them."
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if
the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of
a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot
manifest in a situation where the relatives of the
complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has
been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a
criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts
severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise
must therefore be discouraged.
24. Applying the ratio of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme
Court in the afore-cited cases (supra), in the facts of the present case,
it is apparent that in the written complaint dated 22.12.2017 made by
12 (2018) 14 SCC 452
13 (2022) 6 SCC 599
respondent/complainant and her police statement, she has made
general & omnibus type statement that after few days of marriage all
the petitioners started harassing her physically and mentally to bring
gold and Rs. 10 lakhs. It has also been alleged that in-laws of the
respondent/complainant taunted her about the articles brought by her
from her parental home and they also doubted her character.
25. Allegations levelled against the petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 [in Cr.M.P.
No. 1747 / 2018] are totally general and vague, no specific role of those
petitioners have been stated in the FIR and statements of witnesses
enclosed with the charge-sheet, in respect of alleged harrassment
meted out against the respondent/complainant, to alleged meet
unlawful demand for property or valuable security from her or her
parents.
26. As per statements of respondent/complainant and her mother
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., petitioner Smt. Snehlata Mishra
(mother-in-law of complainant) had not only ousted her son Rajesh
Kumar Mishra (petitioner) and respondent/complainant from her house
but she herself had dropped some of the articles received by
respondent/complainant at the time of marriage, at her parental home.
These facts shows that due to quarrelsome relation between husband &
wife, other family members had fed-up, therefore, despite being mother,
petitioner No. 2 herself had ousted both of them and dropped articles of
respondent/complainant, at her parental home.
27. It is also evident from the statement of respondent/complainant
and her mother itself, that since 15.11.2015 she alongwith her husband
were residing separately from other petitioners, at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai
and from 30.10.2016 i.e after delivery of child by her, she was residing
at her parental home, thus since 15.11.2015 till making of written
complaint dated 22.12.2017 on the basis of which FIR was lodged, she
has not resided with petitioner No. 2 to 4, despite that she has
implicated them in this case. Whereas, there are no other witnesses,
except complainant/wife and her mother which would demonstrate
involvement of petitioner No. 2 to 4 in alleged crime in question.
28. Thus, since no specific act of petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 has been
attributed in the FIR and evidence enclosed with the charge-sheet and
they have been implicated in crime in question only on the basis of
vague, general and omnibus type statements of complainant/wife and
her mother, with intent to harass them, as they are relatives of husband
of respondent/wife, therefore, allowing the continuation of criminal case
against them would amount to abuse of process of law and thus they
deserve to be discharged. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that
learned both the Court below, without considering aforesaid facts and
dictum given by the Apex Court, have dismissed the application under
Section 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner No. 2 to 4, is unsustainable and
the same deserves to be allowed in respect of them.
29. Main allegation in the instant case is against the
petitioner/husband, against whom it has been alleged in the written
complaint dated 22.12.2017 / FIR and statements of the witnesses that,
he subjected cruelty to respondent/complainant, physically and mentally
and also assaulted her at her matrimonial home, her work place and
even in her parental home also, to meet unlawful demand for property
or valuable security from complainant/wife or her parents and when the
petitioner - Rajesh Kumar Mishra & respondent/complainant were living
separately in rented house at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, then her mother had
given Rs. 2 lakh to petitioner/husband by taking loan, from which he
had purchased household articles, there also he has subjected her to
physical and mental cruelty to meet unlawful demand for property.
30. In the matter of Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited v.
State of Maharashtra & others 14 , their Lordships of the Supreme
Court while considering the various judgments rendered by the Apex
Court has observed that exercise of the inherent powers to quash the
criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the charge-sheet
does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. In
such a situation, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in
exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, but
while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the
14 2021 SCC Online SC 315
High Court would not embark upon any enquiry as to whether question
is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the
evidence the accusation would not be sustained.
31. In case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 15 , their Lordships of
the Supreme Court held that: courts have been cautioned that the
power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
32. Very recently, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & another
v. Akhil Sharda & others, (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme
Court held that in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
no mini trial can be conducted and in this regard court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.
33. Reverting to the facts of instant case marriage of respondent/wife
and petitioner - Rajesh Kumar Mishra was solemnized on 30.4.2015
and after few days, she was subjected to cruelty by petitioner/husband
to meet unlawful demand for property and she made written complaint
dated 22.12.2017 to the Superintendent of Police, Durg, as on being
complaint made by her on 21.12.2017, police had given her intimation
under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. and after making written complaint
dated 22.12.2017, her matter was referred to Investigative Units for
Crime Against Women (IUCAW) for conciliation and when conciliation
proceedings failed, thereafter, FIR was lodged on 4.6.2018, therefore,
contention raised by petitioner in person, that the case is beyond
limitation, is unsustainable, as respondent/complainant had made
written complaint on 22.12.2017 itself, therefore, limitation would be
seen on the basis of that date.
34. Likewise contention raised by petitioner in person that, since on
21.12.2017 police gave intimation under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. to
respondent/complainant in respect of alleged incident dated
21.12.2017, therefore, she had made written complaint exaggerating
the facts mentioning false allegation that she has been subjected to
cruelty on demand of property/dowry, is also not sustainable at this
15 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
stage, as it can be examined and considered by the trial Court on the
basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Therefore, considering the
facts and material available in charge-sheet and the principles of law
laid down by the Apex Court in afore-cited judgments, it is quite vivid
that there is sufficient material against petitioner No. 1 Rajesh Kumar
Mishra to proceed with the charge-sheet for the offences under
Section 4 of the Act, 1961 and Sections 498-A and 323 of the IPC.
35. Thus, upon consideration of the entire facts and material of the
instant case and observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
afore-cited cases, FIR No. 09/2018 as well as charge-sheet arising out
of the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings pertaining to Criminal
Case No. 36794/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Kumar Mishra &
others) are quashed against petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 namely Smt.
Snehlata Mishra, Dr. Roshni Mishra & Rakesh Mishra, respectively. But
prayer made by petitioner No. 1 - Rajesh Kumar Mishra in this regard is
declined.
36. Resultantly, Cr.M.P. No. 1747 of 2018 so far as it relates to
petitioner Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are concerned, is allowed and in respect of
petitioner No. 1 - Rajesh Kumar Mishra, the same is dismissed. Since
Cr.M.P. No. 1747 of 2018 is being allowed in respect of Dr. Roshni
Mishra & Rakesh Kumar Mishra also and charge-sheet is being
quashed against them, the result of which is their discharge from all the
charges, therefore, Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2020 filed by them, is also
allowed.
Sd/-
(N.K.Chandravanshi)
Judge
D/-
