Devendra Kumar Sadh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 444 MP

                            1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    MCRC-47776-2020
     Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr.

                    Through Video Conferencing

Gwalior, Dated : 10.01.2022

      Shri Prabhat Pateriya, Counsel for the applicants.

      Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State.

      This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for

quashing the FIR in Crime No.117/2020 registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana, District Gwalior as well as charge-sheet filed for

offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC read with Section

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

      It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the main

ground for quashment of criminal proceedings is plea of alibi. The

applicant No. 3 was undergoing training at Hyderabad from

01.03.2020 till 31.03.2020 and, therefore, it is clear that the

allegations of beating against the applicant No. 3 are false. It is

further submitted that similarly applicant No. 1 is a bank employee

and he was on his duty on 11.03.2020. It is further submitted that due

to lock-down, no proceedings were going on and thus, it is incorrect

to say that the applicant No. 1 did not appear for reconciliation

proceedings in spite of service of notice. It is further submitted that in

fact, no notice was received by the applicant No. 1 with regard to

reconciliation proceedings. Nothing has been argued on behalf of

applicant No. 2.
                            2
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   MCRC-47776-2020
    Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr.

      Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State. It is submitted that if the FIR prima facie

discloses commission of cognizable offence, then legitimate

prosecution should not be stifled in the mid way. Respondent No. 2

has specifically alleged in her FIR as well as her statement under

Section 161 of CrPC that she got married to the applicant No. 1 on

29.05.2019 and an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was spent by her father.

From the second day of marriage, the applicants started scolding that

her parents have not given the dowry as per the status of the

applicants. Had marriage of the applicant No. 1 performed at some

other place, then he would have got the dowry worth Rs.30,00,000-.

It was further alleged that father of the respondent No. 2/complainant

is working on the post of Assistant Teacher and he had given the

household goods of good company. The applicants were demanding

four wheeler vehicle and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the

complainant informed that her father is not financially sound to fulfill

their demand and the marriage of her younger sister is yet to be

performed, then on this issue, the applicants started physically and

mentally harassing the respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that

she was beaten by them. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 informed

her parents on telephone. The parents of the respondent No. 2 came

to matrimonial house of respondent No. 2 and tried to convince the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-47776-2020 Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr.

applicants that as per his financial condition, he is not in a position

to fulfill their demand of a car and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was

alleged that after hearing reply from her father, the applicants started

abusing the respondent No. 2 and her parents and turned her out from

the matrimonial house. Thereafter, again father of the respondent No.

2 contacted the applicant No. 1 and, accordingly, the applicants came

to the parental home of respondent No. 2, but once again, they raised

the demand of one car and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was further

alleged that on 11.03.2020 her husband was called for reconciliation

but he did not appear even for once. It is submitted that there is

nothing in the FIR to show that the respondent No. 2 was ever

assaulted by the applicant No. 1 or 3 in the month of March, 2020.

Thus, even if the applicant No. 3 was at Hyderabad in connection

with his training, then it cannot be said that the allegations made in

the FIR are false. It is further submitted that so far a plea of alibi

raised by respondent No.1 on 11.03.2021 is concerned, it is a case of

the respondent No. 2 herself that the applicant No. 1 did not attend

reconciliation proceedings. It is further submitted that it is incorrect

to say that any lock-down was imposed on 11.03.2021, whereas lock-

down was imposed w.e.f. 24.03.2021.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The application is primarily based on plea of alibi. Counsel for

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-47776-2020 Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr.

the applicant could not point out any allegation from the FIR or the

statements of the witnesses, which may be to the effect that the

respondent No. 2 was beaten by the applicant No. 3 in the month of

March, 2020. On the contrary, it appears from the FIR as well as the

police statement that the respondent No. 2 was already ousted from

her matrimonial house much prior to March 2020. Further, on 11-3-

2020, reconciliation proceedings were to take place, but applicant

no.1 did not attend. Therefore, no plea of alibi is available to the

applicant no.1.

At this stage, it is submitted that since vague allegations have

been made without disclosing the specific date, therefore, it is clear

that the allegations of demand of Car and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

as well as harassment on account of non-fulfillment of said demand

are false.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

applicants.

According to the prosecution case, respondent No. 2 got

married to the applicant No. 1 on 29.05.2019. The period of

limitation under Section 468 of CrPC is three years. Even three years

from the date of marriage have not expired. Specific allegations are

that the applicants demanded a Car as well as an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- and when the respondent No. 2 expressed inability of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-47776-2020 Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr.

her father to fulfill the said demand, then she was beaten by all the

applicants. Since the complaint is within the limitation, therefore, at

this stage, even if specific date of a particular incident has not been

disclosed, still it cannot be said that the allegations are vague.

So far as the question of alibi is concerned, it is well

established principle of law that the burden heavily lies on the

accused to prove the same by cogent and reliable evidence.

In absence of any allegations that any beating was given to the

respondent No. 2 in the month of March, 2020, plea of alibi of the

applicants No. 1 and 3, as set up by the applicants cannot be taken

note of.

So far as the plea of applicant No. 2 is concerned, the applicant

has not made any submission. Furthermore, in the light of the

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Taramani

Parakh Vs. State of MP reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, it is clear

that the allegations made against the applicant No. 2 prima facie

make out an offence warranting her prosecution.

It is well established principle of law that while exercising the

power under Section 482 of CrPC, this Court can quash the

proceedings only if the un-controverted allegations do not make out

an offence. The defence of an accused cannot be looked into at this

stage.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-47776-2020 Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr.

Since the un-controverted allegations prima facie make out an

offence, therefore, no case is made out for quashment of the

prosecution.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.01.11 10:20:58 +05'30'