Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prashant Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2022
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
MCRC No. 52265 of 2020
(PRASHANT SHUKLA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 24-03-2022
Shri Virendra Singh Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Koshlendra Singh Tomar, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1/State.
Shri A.R.Shivhare, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing
the FIR bearing crime No.912/2020 lodged against them at police Station,
Janakganj, Distt. Gwalior, for the offence punishable 498-A, 294, 323, 506/34 of
IPC and its all consequential proceedings.
Facts
necessary for disposal of this petition are that marriage of petitioner
No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 16.1.2017 as per Hindu rites.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant.
Petitioner No.1 was working at Chandigarh and his wife, respondent No.1, was
posted in Union Bank of India. Petitioner No.1 after leaving his services at
Chandigarh came to Gwalior and took a job in Avantika Gas Ltd. On 20.11.2020
respondent No.2 filed a written complaint against petitioners that her father gave
Rs. five lac cash along with house hold articles in the marriage. After marriage for
sometime everything remained peaceful. After marriage, from 17.1.2017 to
30.1.2017 she remained at Gwalior after taking leave. Thereafter she went to Bhind.
Petitioner No.1 never came there. Petitioners asked her to bring more money from
her parents. When respondent No.2 refused, petitioners used to abuse her in filthy
language and commit Marpeet with her. To save her marriage on 14.9.2018 she
deposited Rs.3 lac in the account of her father-in-law Avdhesh Shukla, Thereafter
they pressurized her to bring Rs. five lac more from her parents, due to which she
became mentally disturbed. She also went to Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, but when
no result came out, she filed the report. On his report, Crime No.912/2020 has
been registered at police Station Jangakganj, Distt. Gwalior, for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC.
After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under aforesaid offences.
Respondent No.2 has categorically alleged against petitioners in regard to cruelty in
connection with demand of dowry.
The Apex Court in its decision in the case of Veena Mittal vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in Criminal No.122/2022 passed on 24.1.2022 has
observed as under :-
"In this backdrop, the finding of the High Court to the effect that
there is no specific allegation against the second and third
respondents or that, as the mother and sister of the bridegroom,
they would not be either beneficiaries or have a direct link with
the perpetrators of the crime is not based on cogent material or a
reading of the FIR. It is well settled that at the stage when the
High Court considers a petition for quashing Criminal
proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, the allegations in the
FIR must be read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the
allegations that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, that the
Court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash. the
parameters of the jurisdiction under Section 482 have been
reiterated in a consistent line of authorities and, at this stage, it
may be material to refer to the recent decision of this Court in
Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 315. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside
the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 15
April, 2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.27511 of
2018."
Looking to the allegations contained in the FIR against the petitioners and
the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, at this stage no interference is warranted.
Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ms/-
MADHU
SOODAN
PRASAD
2022.03.25
16:12:28 +05'00'
