Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
MCRC No.42143/2021
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. 42143 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
JITENDRA SHARMA S/O CHAGANLAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE BADODIYA, TEH.
SARDARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKASH RATHI)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH 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 applicant and co-accused persons in Crime No.370/2020
registered at Police Station Sardarpur, District Dhar for alleged offence
punishable under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC.
MCRC No.42143/2021
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that deceased Priyanka
Sharma was married with co-accused Shubham on 24.02.2019. After
about a month of marriage, when she had gone to her parental house,
she told her parents that applicant alongwith other co-accused persons
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 and other co-accused persons who are mother-in-
law and father-in-law of the deceased, demanded an amount of Rs.5
lakh from deceased's parents, 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 co-accused Shubham.
Applicant alongwith other other co-accused persons 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 applicant
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 alongwith other co-accused persons 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.
FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
MCRC No.42143/2021
filed against the applicant and other co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that deceased was
never harassed by the applicant as well as other co-accused persons.
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 him 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 applicant and other co-accused persons. Dying declaration
of the deceased was not recorded by any Executive Magistrate but by
duty doctor or police officials and presence of the applicant and other
co-accused persons 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 applicant
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.42143/2021
of incident deceased was living with applicant and other co-accused
persons. They took the deceased to hospital where her dying
declaration was recorded on cyclostyped form by the concerned doctor
and it is not mentioned therein that at the time of recording aforesaid
dying declaration, applicant or other other co-accused persons 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 applicant and other other co-accused persons.
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 applicant. 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
applicant 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 10:23:14
+05'30'
