Pushpa Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14639 MP

                        1
                                                    MCRC No.42788/2021

              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     BENCH AT INDORE

                      BEFORE
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                    ON THE 11th November, 2022
            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42788 of 2021

  BETWEEN:-
   PUSHPA BAI W/O JITENDRA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILL-BADODIYA TEH. SARDARPUR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SHUBHAM S/O JITENDRA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE BADODIYA TEH.
   SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI AKASH RATHI)

  AND

  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
  THR. P.S. SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
  (BY MS. MAMTA SHANDILYA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)


Reserved On : 06.09.2022
        This petition coming on for order this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Satyendra Kumar Singh passed the following:

                            ORDER

Satyendra Kumar Singh, J., This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashment of FIR as well as subsequent criminal proceeding filed against the applicants and co-accused person in Crime No.370/2020 registered at Police Station Sardarpur, District Dhar for alleged offence

MCRC No.42788/2021

punishable under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that deceased Priyanka Sharma was married with applicant No.2 Shubham on 24.02.2019. After about a month of marriage, when she had gone to her parental house, she told her parents that applicants alongwith co-accused Jitendra Sharma used to quarrel with her and harassed her on petty issues and also assault her. Deceased's parents and other relatives when tried to intervene, applicant No.1 Pushpabai and co-accused Jitendra Sharma who are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased, demanded an amount of Rs.5 lakh from deceased's parent, who after giving assurance, left the deceased at applicant's house and thereafter in the month of April, 2019, gave an amount of Rs.2 lakh to the applicant No.2. Applicants alongwith other co-accused Jitendra Sharma again started harassing her mentally and physically for rest of the amount of Rs.3 lakh. They used to assault her and did not permit her to talk to her parents. On 18.07.2020 at about 06:00 PM, deceased telephonically requested her father to get talk with her mother. On the same day, at about 07:30 PM, her younger brother Rajkumar informed that applicants refused to send the deceased on the festival of Rakhi and in the same intervening night at about 11:00 PM, deceased was admitted in the hospital where at about 12:00 PM on being asked she told her father that applicant's alongwith co-accused Jitendra Sharma continuously harassed her for not giving rest of the amount i.e. Rs.3 lakh and due to which she consumed poisonous substance. Thereafter, on 19.07.2020 at about 04:30 AM, she died during treatment.

Marg bearing No.53/2020 was registered about her death at Police Station Sardarpur, Distt. Dhar. During Marg inquiry, statements of deceased's parents and other prosecution witnesses were recorded.

MCRC No.42788/2021

FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and co-accused Jitendra Sharma.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that deceased was never harassed by the applicants as well as co-accused Jitendra Sharma. Her dying declaration was recorded in the hospital by the duty doctor as well as police official wherein she specifically stated that she consumed poisonous substance on her own free will. Vague and omnibus allegations have been alleged by the parents of the deceased. Offence has been registered without any inquiry. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uka Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2001) 5 SCC 254 to bolster his submission. Therefore, FIR lodged against them and subsequent criminal proceeding may be quashed.

4. Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the application and submits that from the statements of deceased's parents and other prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that just after the marriage deceased was subjected to dowry demand cruelty and died within a year of her marriage. Admittedly, prior to her death, she was living with applicants and co-accused Jitendra Sharma. Dying declaration of the deceased was not recorded by any Executive Magistrate but by duty doctor or police officials and presence of the applicants at the time of recording of the said dying declaration cannot be denied at this stage. Therefore, only on the basis of aforesaid dying declaration, the FIR lodged against the applicants cannot be quashed. Hence, this MCRC sans merits and may be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perusal the record.

6. Admittedly, deceased's marriage was solemnized on 24.02.2019 and she died unnatural death within a year of her marriage. At the time

MCRC No.42788/2021

of incident deceased was living with applicants and co-accused Jitendra Sharma. They took the deceased to hospital where her dying declaration was recorded in cyclotstyped format by the concerned doctor and it is not mentioned therein that at the time of recording aforesaid dying declaration, applicants or other co-accused Jitendra Sharma were present or not. Other dying declaration was recorded on the next date by the police officials. Deceased's parents and other prosecution witnesses stated that in the same intervening night i.e. before recording of deceased's second dying declaration, she told about the harassment made by the applicants and other co-accused Jitendra Sharma.

7. Appreciation of evidence about genuineness of aforesaid dying declarations are not warranted at this stage. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicants. Facts of this case are entirely different from that of Uka ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) In view of the aforesaid, FIR lodged against the applicants and subsequent criminal proceedings are not liable to be set aside. Hence, this MCRC sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge

vibha/-

VIBHA PACHORI 2022.11.11 10:22:29 +05'30'