Chattisgarh High Court
Dhiraj Gupta vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRR No.918 of 2022
Dhiraj Gupta Versus The State Of Chhattisgarh
22.09.2022
Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for the Applicants.
Ms. Priyamvada Singh, Dy. G.A. for the State/Non-Applicant.
Heard.
Issue notice to the Non-Applicant No.2, on payment of P.F., by ordinary mode as
well as registered mode, as per rules.
Also heard on I.A. No.01/2022, an application for stay of further proceedings of
the trial Court.
The applicants have filed this revision petition against framing of charge for
offence u/s 498-A, 313 of I.P.C. & Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. An F.I.R. was
lodged by Non-Applicant No.2 against the present applicants and two other persons
namely, Kanchan Gupta and Sona Gupta, who are sisters of the applicant No.1. Non-
Applicant No.2 and the Applicant No.1 were married on 06.05.2017. Non-Applicant
No.1 is working on the post of A.N.M (Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery) at Sarabkombo,
Tahsil-Bagicha, District-Jashpur, whereas the present applicants are residing in
Jashpur Nagar. Non-applicant No.1 levelled allegation that she has been subjected to
cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry by the applicants and the present
applicants were making taunts on her behaviour also, which became unbearable,
therefore, she lodged FIR.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 29.08.2019, a petition for
dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the
applicant no.1 before the Family Court, Jashpur. In that proceedings, notice was issued
to the Non-Applicant No.2 and same was served upon her 22.10.2019 and after going
through the notice and contents of the suit filed for dissolution of marriage, she lodged
F.I.R. on 16.03.2020 making general allegations against the present applicants and
others two sisters of the Applicant No.1. It is also submitted that after filing of charge-
sheet, at the time of framing of charge, an application under Section 227 of Cr. P.C.
was moved by the Applicants for discharge, the application moved on behalf of the
Kanchan Gupta and Sona Gupta has been allowed on the ground that they are residing
separately in the State of Jharkhand, whereas the application of the other applicants
has been rejected.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants has placed his
reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (Criminal Appeal No. 195
of 2022 decided on 08-02-2022) and Rashmi Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 357 and submits that on account of false
allegations FIR has been lodged by the non-applicant no.2 against the applicants and
charge has been framed, but, essential ingredients for commission of offence under
Sections 498-A & 313 of the I.P.C. & Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not made
out against the applicants and as a counter blast, a suit for dissolution of marriage has
been filed by the Applicant.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by
Shri A.K. Prasad submits that there are sufficient material against the present
applicants. The Non-Applicant No.2, in the statement recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. has made various allegations regarding cruelty and harassment, which resulted
into miscarriage therefore, the learned trial court has rightly framed charge for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A & 313 of I.P.C. & Section 3 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge sheet. From
perusal of record, it appears that after filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage,
the FIR has been lodged. From perusal of the record, it also appears that the Non-
applicant No.2 was still residing at Sarabkombo, where she is posted as ANM. Prior to
marriage, some amount was given in the year of 2017, but, after marriage, no amount
has been transferred in the account of the Applicants. The incident of miscarriage was
occurred in the year 2017 itself.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also
the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & others (supra) and Rashmi Chopra (supra), I am of the view that
a strong case for grant of stay is made out.
Accordingly, the I.A. No.01/2022 is allowed. It is directed that further proceedings
pending before the Additional Session Judge, Jashpur, District-Jashpur in Sessions
Case No.85/2021 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Learned state counsel is granted 4 weeks time to file reply, if any.
List this matter after four weeks.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
vivek
