Gulafsha Khan vs Ministry Of Home State Of Madhya ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3755 MP

                                   1



       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  BENCH AT INDORE
                   W.P.No.3929/2021
   (Gulafsha Khan V/s Ministry of Home State of Madhya
                           Pradesh)
Indore, dated:30/07/2021
         Shri Vishal Sanothiya, learned counsel for the
Petitioner.
         Shri Sanjay Kumar Karanjawala, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondent/State.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to take proper action against her husband by registering an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 326-B of I.P.C.

(2). According to petitioner, she was married with Salman Khan son of Rehman Khan under the Muslim Shariyat Law in the year 2018. After the marriage, her husband and his family members have started assaulting her physically for demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs). There was repeated threat from them about throwing acid upon her. When she could not sustained their atrocities, she has made complaint in Mahila Thana, Indore on 04.01.2019 alleging Domestic Violence. After recording such complainant, the husband and his family members become more furious and started pressurizing her for withdrawal of complaint. She left the house of husband and started living independently. On 26.11.2020, her husband under the influence of alcohol came to her house and started beating her. He was carrying a bottle of acid and threw towards her but she some how saved herself. The drops of acid have burnt her cloths and remaining acid spread on the floor. According to the petitioner, the police visited the spot and registered the NCR for the offence under Section 323 and 504 of I.P.C. According to the police it was not an acid attack but toilet cleaner has been

spread by the petitioner herself. Hence, present petition before this Court seeking suitable action against her husband for committing offence voluntarily throwing of acid, which is punishable under Section 326-B of I.P.C.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Lallan Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3376 and Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 1322.

(4). Vide order dated 17.06.2021, this court has directed Government Advocate to seek proper instructions in the matter. (5). The respondents have filed reply by submitting that on 26.11.2020, the petitioner came to the Chandan Nagar Police Station, Indore for lodging an FIR against her husband Salman Khan and according to the information given by her, Salman Khan came to her house at 07:30 PM to took her at his house but she refused to go with him, thereafter, he has started abusing her and gave a slap. She was medically examined but no injury was found upon the body of the petitioner. Thereafter, again, she made a written complainant on 22.12.2020 against her husband. In both the complainant there are no such allegation of acid attack on her. She was medically examined also in which no burn injury was found on her body as well as her cloth, therefore, the story of acid attack by husband is concocted. It is further submitted that petitioner is having remedy to approach the court under Section 156 or 200 of Cr.P.C.

(6). By this petition, the petitioner is although challenging the action of the respondent but seeking action against her husband, who has not been impleaded respondent in this case, therefore, petition suffers from the misjoinder of necessary party, thus no direction can be given against her husband

Salman without impleading him as respondent. (7). So far as allegation of acid attack is concerned, there are no allegation or averments in the complaints dated 26.11.2020 and 22.12.2020 nor any corresponding burn injuries were found on her body as well as no burnt cloths have been produced before the police, hence prima facie there is no material available on record in respect to acid attack in this matter, no direction can be given to the police. (8). Accordingly, petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach before the competent court as per law.

Certified copy as per Rules.

(Vivek Rusia) Judge praveen

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN NAYAK Date: 2021.08.02 11:03:15 +05'30'