Ramkumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3460 MP

                                   1

          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                           Bench Gwalior
                         *****************

SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

MCRC 16298 of 2021

Ramkumar Sharma and Ors.

vs.

State of MP and Anr.

============================== Shri Harshit Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Abha Mishra, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/ State.

Shri GS Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.2.

            ==============================
Reserved on                                  08/03/2022
Whether approved for reporting             ......../........
            ==============================
                                ORDE R
                           (Passed on 11/03/2022)

Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J

Petitioners have filed this petition u/S 482 of CrPC for

quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet in connection with Crime

No.16 of 2021, registered at Police Station Joura, District Morena for

offence u/S. 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated in connection

with RCT No.77/2021 pending before the Court of JMFC, Joura,

Morena.

(2) Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that the

respondent No.2 lodged an oral complaint at police station Joura

alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with Awadhesh

Sharma on 10th July, 2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at

Gopalpura. At the time of marriage, her father had given sufficient

dowry as per status. After marriage, her husband Awadhesh Sharma

(herein petitioner No.3), mother-in-law Meera Sharma (herein

petitioner No.2), father-in-law Ramkumar Sharma (herein petitioner

No.1), brother-in-law (jeth) Hridesh Sharma (herein petitioner No.4),

sister-in-law (jethani) Smt. Aarti Sharma (herein petitioner No.5)

started demanding dowry of four wheeler. On that, she told that her

father is a very poor person and is not able to fulfil the said demand.

Thereafter, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment with regard

to demand of four wheeler and ''marpeet'' was committed with her

and on 01/08/2020, her in-laws dropped her at Joura Bus-stand and

since then, she is living in her parental house. On the basis of oral

complaint made by respondent No.2 -complainant, a case was

registered vide Crime No.16/2021 at PS Joura and after completion

of investigation and other formalities, the police filed charge-sheet

against petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4

of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court of JMFC took cognizance of

said offence and proceedings were initiated in connection with RCT

No.77/2021 pending before the said Court. Being aggrieved, present

petition has been preferred.

(3) It is contended on behalf of petitioners that even if the entire

facts mentioned in the impugned FIR taken into consideration in its

entirety, then prima facie no case is made out against the petitioners

under Section 498-A of IPC, therefore, to prevent the abuse of

process of law, the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is further

contended that the entire prosecution story as per FIR is doubtful and

on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations, petitioners have been

falsely implicated and prima facie, no case is made out against them.

From the statements of complainant recorded under Section 161 of

CrPC, it reflects that the spresent FIR is being of false implication in

order to pressurizing the petitioners. It is further contended that there

is delay of more than four months in lodging the FIR. Soon after

marriage, petitioner No.1, 2 and 4 are living separately and there was

a partition deed executed between sons of petitioners No.1 and 2 vide

notification of memorandum in the daily newspaper on 04/11/2019

and since then, both the sons were living separately. It is the ill-will

of complainant in order to grab the property and pecuniary benefit

from her father-in-law and mother-in-law. After partition, the

complainant did not return back to her in-laws house and preferred

an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the

Family Court and while deciding the said application, the statements

of complainant were recorded and a compromise application was

filed to settle the dispute and due to failure of reconciliation

proceedings, the husband of complainant filed an application under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce

for dissolution of marriage. Notices were issued by various modes

even by electronic mode but in order to avoid the same, the present

counterblast FIR has been lodged by the complainant with an ulterior

motive for pressurizing the petitioners wherein, there is no specific

allegation against them for commission of alleged cruelty or demand

of dowry, therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the

petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law and that would result in

causing injustice to them. It is further contended that although

charge- sheet in the matter has been filed in the matter, some

evidence has also been recorded before the Trial Court, even then

inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC can be invoked at any

stage to prevent abuse of process of law. In support of contention,

counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgments of Preeti

Gupta & Another vs. State of Jharkhand &d Another, (2010) 7

SCC 667, Satish Mehra vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, AIR

2013 SC 506, Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat & Others

(2011) 7 SCC 59, Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors. vs.

State of Bihar & Others, 2022 Live-law (SC) 141, Rashida Begum

(Smt.) vs. Smt. Fatima Bano 2014(1) MPWN 29 and Ravikant vs.

State of MP & Another, 2014(1) MPLJ (Cri.) 282 and also the

order dated 18/08/2021 passed by Principal Seat of this Court in the

matter of Abhishek Pandey alias Ramji Pandey & Others vs. State

of MP &Others [CRR 521 of 2021].

(4) Countering the contentions made on behalf of petitioners, it is

submitted by State Counsel as well as counsel for complainant that

there is sufficient evidence available on record by which, cognizance

has been taken against petitioners and after recording evidence of

witnesses, charges have been framed but at any point of time, not a

single proceeding was challenged by petitioners, not only this, but

trial is at the fag end and this petition is liable to be dismissed. So far

as the defence taken by petitioners that the husband of the

complainant has already instituted proceedings under Section 13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act and after receiving notices, the impugned

FIR has been lodged with mala fide intention is concerned, the same

cannot be a good ground for quashment of proceedings and the

grounds which have been raised by the petitioners are their defence,

which can only be considered by leading evidence. At this stage, no

case is made out for quashment of FIR as well as charge-sheet and

other consequential proceedings initiated against petitioners. In

support of contention, respondents' counsel relied on the order dated

15/06/2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC

4058 of 2021 [Bhagwanlal Chhipa and Anr. Vs. State of MP] and

the order dated 21/06/2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in MCRC 12338 of 2021 [Bhagwandas Panth & Ors. Vs.

State of MP & Anr.].

(5) Heard the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties,

perused the record and documents available on record.

(6) Following questions of law require for determination of

present petition:-

(I) Whether the petition preferred by petitioners under Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR can be entertained when the trial has been started and evidence of some witnesses have also been recorded before the trial Court ?

(II) Whether the evidence recorded by trial Court during trial, can be considered for quashment of FIR?

(III) Whether any ground is available for quashment FIR or charge sheet in view of facts and laws available on record ?

Regarding Question of Law No.(I):-

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the inherent

powers can be issued at any stage to prevent abuse of process of any

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It makes no

difference whether trial has been started or not and whether some

evidence has been recorded before the trial Court or not. In support

of contention, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Joseph Salvaraja (supra).

Per contra, the respondents' counsel contended that at this

stage, the present petition cannot be entertained otherwise meaning

of trial shall demolish. At the time of framing of charges and

afterwards when trial has been stated, the prayer for quashment of

FIR was not made by petitioners and because of that no substance,

present petition is liable to be dismissed.

On perusal of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Joseph Salvaraja (supra), this Court is of the considered

opinion that the present petition is maintainable also even when the

trial is at advanced stage. Therefore, this question is answered

affirmatively in favour of petitioners.

Regarding Question of Law No.(II)

It is contended on behalf of the respondents that only the trial

Court can appreciate the evidence of witnesses on merits at the initial

stage and this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction cannot

assume jurisdiction either of the trial Court or the appellate Court and

appreciate the evidence. Truthfulness, sufficiency or acceptability of

evidence deposed in the Court can be judged only at the stage of trial

and this Court is not supposed to embark upon enquiry as to whether

the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable

appreciation of same would not sustain the accusation.

In view of settled principle of law laid down in the matter of

Raman Lal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2001 Cri.LJ 800

and in the matter of Ram Swarup Singh & Others vs. State of

Bihar & Another, reported in 2006 Cri.LJ 4441, this Court is of the

considered opinion that at the time of using inherent powers provided

under Section 482 of Code, the evidence deposed before the trial

Court during trial, cannot be looked into for the purpose of quashing

the FIR. The only facts mentioned in the FIR and other material

available on record produced along with charge sheet would be

looked into for this purpose. This question is answered, accordingly.

Regarding Question of Law No.(III)

In the light of parameters/ guidelines in regard to exercise of

inherent powers u/S. 482 of Code while quashing FIR/charge sheet,

stated in details by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of

Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Others, reported in

1992 SCC (Cri) 426 and R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, reported

in AIR 1960 SC 866 and on perusal of impugned FIR, it appears that

only omnibus allegations have been made by the complainant,

neither date nor time or place regarding the incident happened with

her has been mentioned by her that as and when she was subjected to

cruelty and harassment in regard to demand of dowry i.e. four

wheeler. Prior to lodging the FIR, the complainant has neither given

any report to police nor to anybody. On perusal of documents, it

appears that since after marriage of complainant i.e. on 10/07/2019 a

partition was executed between husband of complainant and brother-

in-law (jeth) of complainant and since 02/11/2019, the complainant is

living with her husband separately, therefore, no question of

dropping complainant by her in-laws at Joura Bus stand on

01/08/2020 by which she is living in her parental house, is not made

out. There is delay in lodging the FIR as the same was lodged on

08/01/2021 i.e. more than four months of the incident. After

partition, the complainant did not return back to her maternal house

and preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act before the Family Court and while deciding the said application,

the statements of complainant were recorded and a compromise

application was filed to settle the dispute and due to failure of

reconciliation proceedings, the husband of complainant filed an

application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a

decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage. Notices were issued by

various modes even by electronic mode but in order to avoid the

same, the present counterblast FIR has been lodged with an ulterior

motive by complainant for pressurizing the petitioners wherein, there

is no specific allegation against them for commission of alleged

cruelty or demand of dowry, therefore, continuation of proceedings in

the present matter against petitioners is clear abuse of process of law.

It is settled principle of law that if FIR does not disclose commission

of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the

proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. In the present

matter also, from perusal of contents of FIR, it is crystal clear that

only omnibus and vague allegations have been made by the

complainant and there is no specific allegation against the

petitioners. Apart from the above, even after availability of ample

opportunities, neither any FIR nor any private complaint was lodged

by the complaint before any Court of law, as the impugned FIR has

been lodged after delay of more than four months.

(7) In the light of aforesaid discussions and the proposition of law

and facts mentioned above, this Court is of the considered opinion

that even if the entire facts mentioned in the impugned FIR are taken

at their face value and accepted in its entirety, prima facie, no offence

is made out against petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned FIR vide

Crime No.16/2021, registered at Police Station Joura, District

Morena is hereby quashed. Petitioners are discharged of charges

levelled against them under Section Section 498-A of IPC and

Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, meaning thereby other

subsequent criminal proceedings initiated in connection with RCT

No.77/2021 pending before the Court of JMFC, Joura, Morena are

hereby dropped.

       (8)      As a sequel, this petition stands allowed.

       (9)      Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as

police station concerned for necessary information and compliance.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge

MKB

Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK Date: 2022.03.12 17:18:19 +05'30'