Vikas Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6512 MP

                                    :: 1 ::

                                                       M.Cr.C. No.44590.2021
               (Vikas Goyal & Another vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)


             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        BENCH AT GWALIOR
                               (Single Bench)
                    Misc. Cri. Case. No.44590/2021

Vikas Goyal & Another                                  ..........Petitioners
                                   Versus
State of M.P. & Others.                                    ......Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance

Shri Kamlesh Kumar Kori, learned counsel for the

petitioners.

Shri Narottam Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent-State.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether approved for reporting :              No
Reserved on                             :     15.9.2021

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- O R D E R-

(08/10/2021)

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") has been preferred by the

petitioners invoking the inherent powers of the court, for quashing :: 2 ::

M.Cr.C. No.44590.2021 (Vikas Goyal & Another vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

FIR dated 6.11.2020 registered at Crime No.0334/2020 by Police

Station Mahila Thana District Gwalior alleging offences under

Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 along-with all consequential proceedings

arising out of the aforesaid FIR in RCT No.3238/2020.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition

in short are that petitioner No.1 is the husband, whereas petitioner

No.2 is the father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is the mother-in-law,

petitioner No.4 is brother-in-law (Nandoi) and petitioner No.5 is

the sister-in-law (Nanad) of respondent No.2. A written complaint

was lodged by respondent No.2 on 6/11/2020 on the allegation

that on 09/12/2016 she was married to petitioner No.1 as per

Hindu Rites and Rituals. The father of prosecutrix/respondent

No.2 tried to satisfy the dowry demand of the petitioners at the

time of marriage, however, the allegation is that petitioners were

not satisfied and continued to inflict mental and physical cruelty

to the prosecutrix/respondent No.2 after marriage. The petitioners

together threatened prosecutrix/respondent No.2 of dire

consequences if she does not bring an amount of Rs.5 Lac. All the

petitioners used to demand dowry repeatedly and they also used to

use abusive filthy language against her parents and they started

harassing her mentally as well as physically. All the petitioners :: 3 ::

M.Cr.C. No.44590.2021 (Vikas Goyal & Another vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

ousted prosecutrix/respondent No.2 from her matrimonial house

and said that she should come back only after taking an amount of

Rs.5 Lac, otherwise she would be killed. Whereafter she is staying

with her parents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

FIR in question is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes

of law and on plain reading of FIR even basic ingredients

necessary to constitute the offences as alleged are not made out.

The prosecutrix/respondent No.2 has failed to perform her

conjugal liability and she herself left her matrimonial house. It is

further submitted that there is no demand of dowry and no cruelty

or misbehavior was done by the present petitioners. The FIR has

been registered only on the basis of false facts. After registration

of the FIR, directions given in the light of judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma & Ors. vs. State of

U.P. & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.1265 of 2017 [Arising out of

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017], had not been

complied with by the police. It is also submitted that one

application filed by petitioner No.1-husband under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Gwalior

wherein respondent No.2 was directed to reside with her husband.

Thereafter, the respondent No.2 has filed one application under :: 4 ::

M.Cr.C. No.44590.2021 (Vikas Goyal & Another vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family

Court which is still pending consideration. On these premises,

learned counsel prayed for quashing of FIR and all consequential

proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the

submissions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners and

submitted that there is sufficient evidence available against the

petitioners/accused for committing the offence under Sections

498-A, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961. Therefore, there is no scope to invoke the inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the present petition filed under

Section 482 of CrPC.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the

available record.

6. Section 498-A of I.P.C. reads as under :

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means--

:: 5 ::

M.Cr.C. No.44590.2021 (Vikas Goyal & Another vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

From the plain reading of Section 498-A of IPC, it is clear

that any willful conduct which is of such a nature which is likely

to drive the woman to commit suicide, grave injury or danger to

life, limb or health or where the harassment of the woman is with

a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for any

property or valuable security, then it would amount to cruelty.

7. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as

under:-

"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

8. The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are

partly administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami [AIR 1977 SC 1489] held

that the section envisages three circumstances in which the

inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to :: 6 ::

M.Cr.C. No.44590.2021 (Vikas Goyal & Another vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

an order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court,

and to secure the ends of justice."

9. The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary.

The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can

always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the

same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is

true that their powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other

provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be

exercised sparingly and with caution.

10. It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section

482 of CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and

should not be arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process

of a criminal trial.

11. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that in the present

case, there are specific allegations against the petitioners of

harassing and maltreating respondent No.2 physically as well as

mentally on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Only

on the basis of order passed by the Family Court under Section 9

of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it cannot be said that no cruelty

was done with regard to demand of dowry.

12. In view of the aforesaid and considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion :: 7 ::

M.Cr.C. No.44590.2021 (Vikas Goyal & Another vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)

that no case is made out to quash the FIR registered at Crime

No.0334/2020 by Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior

along-with all consequential proceedings arising out of aforesaid

FIR in RCT No.3238/2020.

13. Consequently, this petition filed under Sections 482 of

CrPC is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge pwn* Pawan Kumar 2021.10.08 17:14:58 +05'30'