Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitednrabohra 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. 11776 of 2021
Between:-
1. JITEDNRA BOHRA S/O LATE BHUPENDRA
BOHRA , AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PVT. SERVICE PARWATI SADAN, NALESHWAR
MAHADEV MANDIR (RAJASTHAN)
2. KAUSHALYA BOHRA W/O BHUPENDRA BOHRA ,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE PARWATI SADAN, NALESHWAR
MAHADEV MANDIR, JODHPUR (RAJASTHAN)
3. POONAM THANVI W/O SANDEEP THANVI ,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE OPP MEDICAL COLLAGE, SARDARPURA,
JODHPUR (RAJASTHAN)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ROHIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THR. NEEMUCH CANT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SEEMA PUROHIT BOHRA W/O JITENDRA
PUROHIT 06, SINDHI COLONY, NEEMUCH CANT,
NEEMUCH (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. MAMTA SHANDILYA, GA FOR THE STATE AND SHRI
HIMANSHU JOSHI, ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
NO.2)
This PETITION coming on for ADMISSION this day, but with
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.14
the consent of parties, heard finally and the court passed the
16:38:59 IST
following:
2
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashment of FIR arising out of Crime No.14/2021 registered at Police
Station Neemuch Cant, Neemuch as well as the subsequent proceedings
under Section 498-A and 294/34 of IPC.
As per the prosecution story, the complainant/respondent no.2 has
approached the police station and lodged the FIR by submitting that her
marriage was solemnized on 05.12.2018 with petitioner no.1 in Indore
but immediately after the marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and
sister-in-law were taunting her and harassing her and they were
constantly pressurizing her for taking a gold chain and Rs.6-lacs from
her parents as dowry. Hence, the police has registered the FIR against
the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present Case. Petitioner
no.1 is husband and petitioner no.2 and 3 are mother-in-law and sister-
in-law of respondent no.3 respectively. The FIR, in the given facts and
circumstances is having no ingredient of Section 498-A and 294 of
IPC. It is also submitted that the petitioner was married with the
respondent on 05.12.2018 and the petitioner no.1 was working with a
private firm at Doha (Qatar) since 2012 and this fact was very much
known to respondent no.2 and her her parents. After two months of the
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.14
marriage ceremony, the petitioner no.1 left the country for seeking
16:38:59 IST
livelihood and since then was residing at Doha and was pursuing his job
there. on 17.11.2020, father of the petitioner died and on 19.11.2020,
he came to India for performing the last customary rituals. After that,
petitioner no.1 alongwith his sister,left respondent no.2 at her parental
house on 10.12.2020 because of customary practice of her matrimonial
house, petitioner no.1 was to leave for Doha for his job and his leave
was going to end on 19.12.2020. It is further submitted that
surprisingly, on 22.12.2020, the petitioners got registered legal notice
from an Advocate of respondent no.2 alleging interalia that the
petitioner no.1 is trying to leave the country alone and also trying to
seek divorce from respondent no.2 on one or other pretext. In the said
notice, maintenance @ Rs.25000/- was also demanded and a complaint
was also made to the Superintendent of Police, Neemuch also
containing similar allegations. It is also submitted that during the entire
period of two years when respondent no.2 resided with parents of
petitioner no.1 at her matrimonial home at Jodhpur, not a single
communication was made to her parents regarding demand of dowry
and no allegations of harassment was also made during the aforesaid
period. The FIR has been filed only on the basis of afterthought
allegations and only with intent to harass the petitioners, false FIR has
been lodged. Petitioner no.2 is old lady and aged about 60 years and
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
petitioner no.3 is residing with her husband and family at her
Date: 2022.05.14
16:38:59 IST
matrimonial home at Jodhpur. Hence, there is no ingredients of
harassment or demand of dowry, therefore, the petitioners are entitled
for quashment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners cited the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr., (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54 . In this case, Hon'ble Apex
Court in para 29 of the judgment laid down the guidelines on which the
High Court using the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 and
quash the charges framed under non-compoundable offences. Taking
the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court under consideration. It is
apparent that the present dispute is regarding a business matter. It is
their personal dispute and society at large is not affected by the dispute.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29.2 laid down two tests stating therein
that the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion
on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance over the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra And
Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2012 (1)) SCC
741], Pushpa Sonakiya and Others vs. State of M.P. & Others
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
[2019 SCC ONline MP 4800]
Date: 2022.05.14
16:38:59 IST
Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for respondent
no.2 have opposed the prayer by submitting that the petitioner no.1 has
left respondent no.2 in India and not taking her with him. The
petitioners have harassed the respondent no.2, hence, she has field the
FIR against the petitioners due to the harassment by the petitioners.
Trial is going on, charge-sheet has already been filed and if the
petitioners have not committed any harassment or demand of dowry, the
learned trial Court shall considered the same as per the evidence
available on record at the time of final judgment. Hence, the petitioners
are not entitled for any relief from this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the case diary as well as record.
The FIR was lodged on 13.01.2021 by stating that the petitioners
have tortured respondent no.2 and demanding one gold chain and Rs.6/-
lacs cash and on10.12.2020, petitioner no.1 had left her in her parents
home and asked her that if she would not to come without taking gold
chain and Rs.6lacs case otherwise she has no need to come to her
matrimonial house.
This Court has observed that on 19.11.2020, respondent no.2 has
filed the applications before the police authorities, but nothing has been
stated therein regarding demand of dowry as mentioned in the FIR and
she has also served a legal notice dated 22.12.2020 upon petitioner
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
n.1/husband in which, there is no allegation regarding harassment or
Date: 2022.05.14
16:38:59 IST
demand of dowry and only maintenance of Rs.25000/- per month was
demanded. On perusal of the notice and the application given to the
police authorities, it is crystal clear that the petitioner no.1 in foreign
(Doha, Qatar) and she is in India and suffering from mental agony but
no allegations were leveled regarding demand of gold chain and
Rs.6/lacs cash.
In the case of Geeta Mehrota (Supra), it has been held by
Hon'ble Apex Court that "large number of family members had been
included in FIR casually mentioning their names and contents did not
disclose their active involvement, cognizance of matter against them
would not be justified. Under such circumstances, cognizance would
result in abuse of judicial process"
Respondent no.2 has not alleged anything against petitioner no.1
in the application made before the police authorities as well as in the
legal notice sent to him. First time, the allegations have been levelled in
the FIR regarding demand of gold chain and amount of Rs.6/- lacs. The
respondent has neither mentioned the date nor the time or occurrence of
incident regarding aforesaid demand of dowry.
In the light of the above principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the Case, in the opinion of this Court, except omnibus
allegations, the respondent has neither made any allegations against the
petitioners nor any specific time and day was mentioned and merely by
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
making general allegations that the petitioners are involved in torture of
Date: 2022.05.14
16:38:59 IST
the complainant, it would not be just to proceed against the petitioners
when the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of offences under
Section 498-A and 294/34 of IPC.
In view of the preceding analysis, this petition is allowed.
Impugned FIR arising out of Crime No.14/2021 registered at Police
Station Neemuch Cant, Neemuch as well as the subsequent proceedings
under Section 498-A and 294/34 of IPC pending against the petitioners
are hereby quashed. The petitioners are discharged from offences
aforesaid.
Certified Copy, as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
AMIT
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.14
16:38:59 IST
