Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arif Khan Alias Munna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8529 of 2022
Between:-
1. ARIF KHAN ALIAS MUNNA S/O LATE YUSUF
KHAN , AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE HOUSE NO. 2217, TRILOKIPURAM,
GALI NO. 3, BULANDSHAHAR ROAD, PS
KOTWALI NAGAR, JANPAD HAPUR (UTTAR
PRADESH)
2. ISRAIL ALIAS GUDDU S/O LATE SHRI YUSUF
KHAN , AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE SERVICE HOUSE NO. 2217,
TRILOKIPURAM, GALI NO. 3, BULANDSHAHAR
ROAD, PS KOTWALI NAGAR, JANPAD HAPUR
(UTTAR PRADESH)
3. ISMAIL ALIAS PAPPU S/O LATE SHRI YUSUF
KHAN , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE SERVICE HOUSE NO. 2217,
TRILOKIPURAM, GALI NO. 3, BULANDSHAHAR
ROAD, PS KOTWALI NAGAR, JANPAD HAPUR
(UTTAR PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION MIG, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ALEENA W/O AAS MOHAMMED KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
TUITION R/O G-2, RAMESHWARI APARTMENT
18, SHRI NAGAR EXTENSION, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN REENA JOSEPH
Date: 2022.05.10 .....RESPONDENTS
16:40:14 IST
(SHRI R.S.SURYAWANSHI, DY.GOVT.ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
2
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed to quash
FIR No.790/2021 against the petitioners for offence under
Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 registered at Police
Station MIG, District Indore.
The facts of the case in brief are that on 06.11.2021,
respondent no.2 went with her brother to Police Station and
lodged a report alleging that her marriage was solemnized with
Aas Mohammed S/o Yusuf Khan on 04.06.2009 as per Muslim
rites and rituals. It is alleged that after about 3 months of
marriage, disagreement occurred between them and her
husband. They started demanding dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-and
started abusing and beating her, as she gave birth to girl child.
On 21.09.2020, when she called her brother, her husband
abused her brother and pronounced triple talaq in presence of
her brother.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN REENA JOSEPH
Date: 2022.05.10
16:40:14 IST
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners
have falsely been implicated in the case and they do not have
any direct or indirect connection with alleged offence and if the
FIR is accepted in toto, no prima facie case is made out against
the petitioners. Since 2014, respondent no.2 and her husband
was living separately from petitioners at Indore. No allegation
of any such demand has been made against the petitioners prior
to lodging of the FIR dated 06.11.2021. The FIR has been
lodged after a delay of more than 7 years of the incident against
the petitioners therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the FIR filed
is an after thought. Respondent no.2 has roped all the
petitioners and have made vague, bald and omnibus allegations
against them and no specific overt act has been attributed to
them. From the perusal of FIR there is nothing to show that
which petitioner has committed which offenec and what
offence and what is the exact role played by the petitioners
therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment 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
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN REENA JOSEPH
SC 181 and Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam and others Vs.
Date: 2022.05.10
16:40:14 IST
State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC
I t is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is an abuse of the process of law to allow the
prosecution against the petitioners. It is further submitted that
Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Marriage) Act, 2019 is attracted only against the husband. On
the aforesaid grounds prayer is made to quash the FIR
No.790/2021 registered at Police Station MIG, Indore.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and
prays for dismissal of this petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
case diary.
From the perusal of the FIR dated 06.11.2021, it is clear
that there is no allegation against the present petitioners
regarding demand of dowry. The only allegation against the
present petitioners in the FIR is as below:-
" blh vucu ds pyrs esjk ifr vkl eksgEen] esjk nsoj vkfjQ]
bljkbZYk] bLekbZy esjs lkFk ekjihV djus yxsA "
I n the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN REENA JOSEPH
same allegations are there. Coming to the facts of this case, on
Date: 2022.05.10
16:40:14 IST
the perusal of the FIR, it is also apparent that here are no
specific allegations against the present petitioners. In the instant
case, when incident took place how and when the petitioners
have beaten respondent no.2. It is reflected that there is casual
reference of the names of the petitioners in the FIR, as there is a
tendency to involve the entire family members of the household
in the domestic quarrel taking place in the matrimonial dispute
specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (Supra) it has been held as
under:-
"Coming to the facts of this case, when the
contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent
that there are n o allegations against Kumari
Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except
casual reference of their names who have been
included in the FIR but mere casual reference
of the names of the family members in a
matrimonial dispute without allegation of active
involvement in the matter would not justify
taking cognizance against them overlooking the
fact borne o u t o f experience that there is a
tendency to involve the entire family members
of the household in the domestic quarrel taking
place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it
happens soon after the wedding."
In the case of Neelu Chopra (Supra) it has been held as
under:-
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
" I n o r d er t o lo d ge a proper compliant, mere
SAN REENA JOSEPH
Date: 2022.05.10
16:40:14 IST
mention of the sections and the language of those
sections is not be all and end of the matter. What
i s required to be brought to the notice of the
court is the particulars of the offence committed
by each and every accused and the role played by
each and every accused in committing of that
o f f en ce. When we see the complaint, the
complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to
which accused has committed what offence and
what is the exact role played by these appellants
i n th e commission o f offence. There could be
said something against Rajesh, as the allegations
are made against him more precisely but he is no
more and has already expired. Under such
circumstances, it would be an abuse of process
of law to allow the prosecution to continue
against th e aged parents o f Rajesh, th e present
appellants herein on the basis of vague and
general complaint which is silent about the
precise acts of the appellants."
In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonal (Supra) in
paragraph 15 it has been held as under :-
"35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and protect
the innocent. To find out the truth is a
herculean task in majority of these complaints.
T h e tendency of implicating husband and all
his immediate relations is also not uncommon.
At times, even after the conclusion of criminal
trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth.
The courts have to be extremely careful and
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN REENA JOSEPH
Date: 2022.05.10
16:40:14 IST
cautious in dealing with these complaints and
must take pragmatic realities into consideration
while dealing with matrimonial cas es . The
allegations of harassment of husband's close
relations who had been living in different cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided would have an
entirely different complexion. T h e allegations
of the complaint are required to be scrutinized
with great care and circumspection.
3 6 . Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,
acrimony and bitterness in the relationship
amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by the
complainant if the husband or the husband's
relations had to remain in jail even for a few
days, it would ruin the chances of amicable
settlement altogether. The process of suffering
is extremely long and painful."
In view of the above discussions, it is clear that there are
no specific allegations against the present petitioners. The
petitioners are the brother-in-law of respondent no.2. Only
omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned FIR
No.790/2021 against the petitioners for offence under Sections
498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and Section 4 of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, registered at
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN REENA JOSEPH
Date: 2022.05.10
Police Station MIG, Indore stands quashed.
16:40:14 IST
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN REENA JOSEPH
Date: 2022.05.10
16:40:14 IST
