Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Pateriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 41915 of 2019
(SHUBHAM PATERIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 17-02-2022
Shri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri Ramadhar Chaubey, learned P.P. for respondent/State.
Shri Mahesh Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
The inherent powers of this Court are invoked u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking
quashment of criminal proceeding bearing Case No.1387/2019 pending before
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna and FIR registered at Police Station Cantt,
District Guna at Crime No.737/2019 for punishable offences under Sections 498-
A, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the
petitioners.
Prosecution story in nutshell is that complainant/respondent No.4 along with
her father lodged a written complaint at Police Station Cantt, District Guna against
her in-laws along with her husband/petitioner No.1 alleging that her marriage was
solemnized with petitioner No. 1 on 12.05.2019 as per Hindu customs and rituals.
As per the capacity of her parents, they gave enough material as gifts. After
marriage her in-laws i.e. all the petitioners started demanding additional dowry, in
absence of fulfillment whereof harassed and conspired to kill her of which, she
possessed recording. On the basis of which, aforesaid offences were registered
against the petitioners. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were
recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent
Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is nothing on record to
establish the factum of demand of dowry made and harassment extended to the
complainant. Actually complainant wanted to reside separately and used to talk
with someone else. When, the husband of the complainant objected to it she used
to quarrel with him. Consequently, complainant went to her parental house and
started living with her parents. However, petitioner No. 1 wanted to get the entire
matter sorted-out by mutual understanding, for which he filed an application under
Section 9 of HMA for restitution of conjugal rights. Petitioner No. 1 having
apprehension of false implication by the complainant submitted various written
complaint to the police authorities. In such circumstances, complainant lodged an
FIR against her husband and in-laws as a counter blast. In support of his
contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Raju @ Nagendra Singh
Chauhan and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. 2018 (1) MPLC 38 M.P.,
Ravikant Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. 2014 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 282, Monju Roy
and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal (2015) 13 SCC 693, Preeti Gupta and
Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2010 Cr.L.R (SC) 821 and Padam
Kumar Jain Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. 2017 1 Cr.L.R (M.P.) 42 by
contending that it is the tendency of the complainant to implicate the entire family
of in-laws to satiated her thirst. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for quashment of FIR as well as consequential proceedings.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the contentions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that on the basis of written
complaint filed by wife of petitioner No.1 an FIR was registered against the present
petitioners. It is submitted that matter was investigated and charge sheet has been
filed before the competent Court. It is further submitted that the arguments which
have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present case may
be advanced at the time of framing of charge as defence. At this stage, no
interference is called for under inherent powers. Hence, he prays for dismissal of
present petition.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the documents.
From perusal of the complaint filed by wife of petitioner No.1 and the FIR
registered against the present petitioners, prima facie it appears that during
investigation statements of witnesses were recorded wherein it is reflected that
petitioners demanded dowry and harassed the complainant with cruelty. It is
further seen that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under the aforesaid
sections before the competent Court.
The scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed by the Apex court
in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported
in (2014)7 SCC 215 extensively. The relevant paras are reproduced herein :-
"10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem
it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 CrPC, which reads:
482.Saving of inherent powers 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. A bare perusal of Section 482 CrPC makes it crystal
clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of
process of court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard-and-fast rules that
can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the
same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no
straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise
its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case. The courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC."
In view of above, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the
present petition stands dismissed. However, petitioners are at liberty to raise all his
defences at time of framing of charges before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
(LJ*)
LOKENDRA JAIN
2022.02.17
17:36:05 +05'30'
