Deepika Jadhav vs State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 12704 MP

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE
                         BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

            ON THE 22nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022


            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42457 of 2020


 BETWEEN:-
 DEEPIKA JADHAV S/O SHIVLAL JADHAV,
 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
 GOVT SERVICE 50, OLD HOUSING BOARD
 COLONY, SARASWATI SHISHU MANDIR
 WARD NO. 9, BARWANI (MADHYA
 PRADESH)
                                              .....PETITIONER
 (KAILASH CHANDRA YADAV, LEARNED
 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )

 AND
   STATE OF M.P. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
1. THROUGH P.S. DHAMNOD (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   SMT.   NISHA W/O      SHRI  LAXMAN
   MAHNIYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: PRIVATE NOKRI GRAM
   DHANI TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                            .....RESPONDENTS
 (PROXY COUNSEL SHASHWAT SETH PL
 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
 GENERAL)
                                    2


      This M.Cr.C. coming on for hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
                            O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of FIR dated 3.9.2020 bearing crime No. 492/2020 registered against him at police station Dhamnod District Dhar for commission of offence punishable under section 498A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that marriage between respondent no.2 Nisha with co-accused Laxman was performed on 26.4.2012 and respondent no.2 was harassed by her husband and in laws for demand of dowry. She tolerated such harassment to secure her marital life but during covid lockdown her husband left her alongwith his son in her parental house by stating that " you will only return in my house when your father fulfill the demand of money". On 12.7.2020, when respondent no. 2 reached at Sendhwa she came to know that her husband contracted second marriage with present petitioner Deepika and both of them expelled the respondent no. 2 from her house and abused her in a filthy language by threatening that if she comes here again they will kill them, thereafter respondent no. 2 lodged FIR against the petitioner and her husband. On the basis of aforesaid, police registered offence under section 498A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the trial court.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that she has been falsely implicated in this case, she is posted as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 4 Tehsil Thikari. At the time of incient on 12.7.2020 she was performing her official duty at gram panchayat Barufatak and government has issued certificate regarding her duty which is on record as Annexure A-3. The respondent no.2 earlier on 5.8.2020 also made a written complaint but in the earlier complaint did not state anything against the petitioner. FIR has been lodged after a delay of one month and 12 days without any plausible explanation. MLC of respondent no. 2 also conducted after a delay of more than one month. Prima facie no offence has been made out against her. Therefore, learned counsel prays for quashment of FIR bearing Registration No. 492/2020 registered at police Station Dhamnod.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/state opposes the prayer by stating that there are sufficient material available on record to show prima facie case made against the petitioner for offence punishable under section 498A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed before the trial court and petitioner has only challenged registration of FIR. The ground of defence as plea of alibi cannot be considered at this stage without recording the evidence.

None had appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 though duly served.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the record and also the charge sheet, it appears that present petition has been preferred by petitioner mainly on the ground that at the time of incident she was working at other place and performing her duties and in support of the same petitioner has relied upon Annexure A-2 To A-5 filed alongwith the petition. But the aforesaid documents i.e. Annexure A-2 to A-5 cannot be looked into at this juncture, without recording the evidence since these documents primarily show the defense of petitioner under garb of plea of alibi may be proved in defence evidence.

The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 317 has held as under:-

It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence

alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.

In case of Chirag M. Pathak and others Vs. Dollyben Kantilal Patel reported in (2018) 1 SCC 330 the Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:-

The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, cannot undertake a detailed examination of the facts contained in the FIR by acting as an Appellate Court and draws its own conclusion. It is only when no prima facie cognizable case is made out on its mere reading due to absurdity in the allegations.

The Apex Court in the case of CBI Vs. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 in paragraph No.17 has held as under:-

"17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegtions made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by

the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for."

In the case of Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2953 of 2022, Hon'ble the apex Court has held as under:-

".....Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. ...."

It is also notable that petitioner has only sought quashment of FIR but in the instant case, investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed before the trial court. Hence petitioner has not challenged the further proceeding in pursuance to the FIR dated 3.9.2020 therefore, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage this court cannot make roving inquiry, but if the uncontroverted allegations do not make any offence, only then this Court can quash the FIR. The allegations made against the petitioner establish prima facie case punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC of the IPC. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that there is no evidence available against him, cannot be accepted at this stage.

In view of the prima facie evidence available on record

against the petitioner, without considering the facts on merit, this Court cannot analyze the entire evidence at this stage and come to the conclusion that whether a conviction is possible or not. Therefore, I am of considered view that it is not a fit case where this Court can exercise the power conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall continue the trial against the applicant without being influenced or prejudice by the observation made in the instant order Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) J U D G E BDJ

Digitally signed by BHUVNESHWAR DATT JOSHI Date: 2022.09.24 10:57:48 +05'30'