Ramsahay Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 16043 MP

                                                                        1
                                             IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                AT INDORE
                                                                     BEFORE
                                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                            ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6359 of 2022

                                            BETWEEN:-
                                            1.    RAMSAHAY JATAV S/O DARSHANLAL JATAV,
                                                  AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
                                                  ADITYA NAGAR, SHAJAPUR, DIST. SHAJAPUR
                                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            2.    MANMOHAN S/O RAMSAHAY JATAV, AGED
                                                  ABOUT    27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
                                                  VILLAGE BERCHHA,    SHAJAPUR   (MADHYA
                                                  PRADESH)

                                            3.    GAJENDRA S/O RAMSAHAY JATAV, AGED ABOUT
                                                  30  YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE VILLAGE
                                                  BADAGAO (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            4.    SMT. RAMBETI BAI W/O RAMSAHAY JATAV,
                                                  AGED   ABOUT     54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                                  HOUSEHOLD   ADITYA  NAGAR,   SHAJAPUR
                                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                               .....PETITIONER
                                            (SHRI AKHIL GODHA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)

                                            AND
                                            1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                                  HOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S. RAJGARH, DIST.
                                                  RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            2.    JYOTI JATAV W/O BHAGWANDAS JATAV, AGED
                                                  ABOUT 25 YEARS, BHAVAR COLONY, RAJGARH.
                                                  AT PRESENT R/O WARD NO. 5, KALAKHET
                                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            3.    BHAGWANDAS S/O RAMSAHAY JATAV, AGED
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
  SAN                 AMIT KUMAR
                      Date: 2022.12.06
                                                  ABOUT   35  YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
                      14:42:14 IST
                                                  BHAVAR COLONY (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                                                                         2
                                            (SHRI HEMANT SHARMA G.A. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
                                            GENERAL/STATE & NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 THOUGH
                                            SERVED)

                                                  This application coming on for ADMISSION, with consent of
                                            the parties heard finally and, the court passed the following:
                                                                             ORDER

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 o f Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR dated 09.11.2020 bearing Crime No.589/2020 registered at Police Station Rajgarh under Section 498- A/34 of IPC .

As per the prosecution story, the complainant/respondent no.2 has

approached the police station and lodged the FIR by submitting that her marriage was solemnized on 28.11.2017 with respondent no.3. She lived with her in-laws. and since after her marriage. She further stated that per parents have given whole household items to her in-laws, but even after that only after one year, her the petitioners have started demand of dowry. On the basis of the application of respondent no2, the police has registered the case against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 and 4 are parents in law of respondent no.2/complainant and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are brothers-in-law of respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the complainant has leveled only omnibus allegations against the petitioners, the petitioners and the complainant/respondent no.2 are having no relation because the complainant used to live Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST

separate since long. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 is

working as District Malaria Officer, Shajapur and residing there with petitioner no.4. It is further submitted that petitioner no.2 is also residing at Berchha, District Shajapur since 2018 and petitioner no.3 is residing at Badagon, Agar Malwa and in support of his contentions, documents regarding their attendance certificates have been filed before this Court issued by their employers respectively. It is further submitted that the petitioners have ended their relationship with the respondent no.3 in the year 2014 through proper process of law. It is further submitted that in the entire FIR, there is only omnibus allegations against the petitioners and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have ever demanded dowary from the complainant/respondent no.2. The petitioners are facing the trial without there being any fault on their part. The FIR has been filed only to harass the petitioners that too only on the basis of omnibus allegations.. Hence, there is no ingredients of harassment or demand of dowry, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for quashment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of

Punjab and Anr., (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54 . In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29 of the judgment laid down the guidelines on which the High Court using the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 and Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR quash the charges framed under non-compoundable offences. Taking Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST

the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court under consideration. It is

apparent that the present dispute is regarding a business matter. It is their personal dispute and society at large is not affected by the dispute. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29.2 laid down two tests stating therein that the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184, Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 and Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 162 & Pushpa Sonakiya and Others vs. State of M.P. & Others [2019 SCC ONline MP 4800].

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that the petitioners have harassed the respondent no.2, hence, she has field the FIR against the petitioners due to the harassment by the petitioners. Trial is going on, charge-sheet has already been filed and if the petitioners have not committed any harassment or demand of dowry,

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR the learned trial Court shall considered the same as per the evidence Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST

available on record at the time of final judgment. Hence, the petitioners

are not entitled for any relief from this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case diary as well as record.

From the face of record, it is admitted that the petitioners no.1 and 4 are parents-in-law of respondent no.2 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are brothers-in-law of respondent no.2/complainant. Respondent no.2 has made only omnibus allegations against the present petitioners in the FIR as well as in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The respondent is residing with her husband in District Rajgarh whereas the petitioners are living separate from respondent nos.2 and 3, such types of allegations have not been leveled by her to any one and no report was ever filed and first time, she has leveled the allegations by filing the FIR against the petitioners.

In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (Supra), it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that "large number of family members had been included in FIR casually mentioning their names and contents did not disclose their active involvement, cognizance of matter against them would not be justified. Under such circumstances, cognizance would result in abuse of judicial process"

In the light of the above principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case, in the opinion of this Court, except omnibus

Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR allegations, there is nothing on record against the petitioners and merely Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST

by making general allegations that the petitioners are involved in torture

of the complainant, it would not be just to proceed against the petitioners when the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of under Section 498-A/34 of IPC.

I n view of the preceding analysis, this petition is allowed. Impu gned FIR dated 09.11.2020 bearing Crime No.589/2020 registered at Police Station Rajgarh District Rajgarh under Section 498- A/34 of IPC pending against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information.

Certified Copy, as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified VerifiedDigitally Digitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST