Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurmukha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 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 27th OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9413 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. GURMUKHA S/O LATE ARJUNDAS MANJAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 328, DWARKAPURI, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. [email protected] W/O PRAJLAJRAL
MANIYAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 279, DWARKAPURI.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MOHANLAL S/O LATE ARJUN DAS MANJAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 3A, DWARKAPURI. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RAHUL SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER [P-1].
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S. MAHILA THANA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KOMAL MANJAR W/O SHRI GURMUKHA
MANJAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 6A DWARKAPURI.
INDORE PRESENT ADD. 79, KATJU COLONY.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MUKESH SHARMA G.A. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL.
SHRI ANOPAM CHOUHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
RESPONDENT [R-2].
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.31
This application coming on for ADMISSION, with consent of
18:45:13 IST
2
the parties heard finally and, the court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR dated 09.11.2020 bearing Crime
No.109/2020 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore under
Section 498-A, 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 alognwith the subsequent proceedings
pending before the JMFC, Indore in Case No.49/2021.
As per the prosecution story, the complainant/respondent no.2 has
approached the police station and lodged the FIR at Mahila Police
Station, Indore by submitting that her marriage was solemnized on
02.11.1997 with petitioner no.1. She lived with her in-laws. Almost
after more than 20 years of her marraige, she alleged that her in-laws
are and her husband have harassed her and demanded Rs.15Lacs as
dowry at various occasions with a car and harassed her mentally and
physically. They were taunting her and harassing her and they were
constantly pressurizing her for taking dowry from her parents. 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 of respondent no.2/complainant and petitioner nos.2
and 3 are relatives of petitioner no.1 i.e. brother and sister-in-law
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.31
18:45:13 IST (bhabhi). The FIR, in the given facts and circumstances is having no
ingredient of Section 498-A and 323 of IPC. It is also submitted that
Prior to this FIR, the petitioner no.3 has filed a complaint against
respondent no.2 and her son Sahil on 17.08.2020 which was registered
at Crime No.407/2020 at Police Station Dwarkapur Indore and the
present FIR is nothing but counter blast of the FIR lodged by the
petitioners. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature and is
being given color of criminal one. She has not made any allegations
against the petitioners since last so many years. The FIR has been filed
only on the basis of afterthought omnibus allegations and only with
intent to harass the petitioners, there is no date and time in the FIR to
establish that on which date the incident was happened. 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.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.31
The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29.2 laid down two tests stating therein
18:45:13 IST
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 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 SC
181 and Kahkashan Kausar @Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar
and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 162 & Pushpa
Sonakiya and Others vs. State of M.P. & Others [2019 SCC ONline
MP 4800].
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by
submitting that 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
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.31
the case diary as well as record.
18:45:13 IST
From the face of record, it is admitted that the petitioners are
husband and other relatives of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 has
made only omnibus allegations against the present petitioners in the FIR
as well as in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
From the face of record, it is crystal clear that the FIR lodged by
respondent no.2 is counter blast of the FIR lodged by petitioner no.3.
The respondent has lived with the present petitioners for a long period,
such types of allegations have not been leveled by her to any one and no
report was filed and first time, she has leveled the allegations filing the
FIR by petitioner no.3.
In the case of Geeta Mehrotra (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"
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, there is nothing on record against the petitioners and merely
by making general allegations that the petitioners are involved in torture
of the complainant, it would not be just to proceed against the
petitioners when the FIR does not disclose the ingredients of under
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under section
Date: 2022.10.31
18:45:13 IST
498-A, 323/34 of IPC.
I n view of the preceding analysis, this petition is allowed.
Impugned FIR dated 09.11.2020 bearing Crime No.109/2020
registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore under Section 498-A,
323, 294, 506/34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act 1961 alognwith the subsequent proceedings pending before the
JMFC, Indore in Case No.49/2021 pending against the petitioners are
hereby quashed. The petitioners are discharged from offences aforesaid.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for
information.
Certified Copy, as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.10.31
18:45:13 IST
