Smt. Rashmi W/O Late Shri Mukesh ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6344 MP

                                1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT I N D O R E
                              BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

                ON THE 20th OF APRIL, 2023

          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4651 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
SMT. RASHMI W/O LATE SHRI MUKESH KUMAR SONI D/O LATE
SHRI SHANKARLAL JI SONI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION:    HOUSEWIFE    R/O  F-3/4 PINE    WOOD
APRARTMENT AMALTAS NEAR PARK CITY KATARA HILLS
HUZUR BAG MUGALIYA DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                            .....PETITIONER
(SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
1. OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BANGANGA, INDORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SMT. SHWETA W/O SHRI AASHISH JI SONI, AGED ABOUT 39
   YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVANT PERMANANT R/O 334
   SECTOR 09 B SAKET NAGAR BAG SEVANIA, DISTRICT
2. BHOPAL POLICE STATION BAGSEWANIA DISTRICT BHOPAL
   PRESENTLY R/O E 14 MPEG QUARTER POLOGROUND
   DISTRICT INDORE POLICE STATION BANGANGA, DISTRICT
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI TARUN PAGARE, ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
(SHRI ANIMESH SANYAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
      This application coming on for admission this day, the
court passed the following:

                              ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime

No.140/2020 dated 04.02.2020 by Police-Station - Banganga, Indore for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also final report No.335/2020 and the subsequent proceedings in Regular Criminal Trial No.353/2021 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Indore.

2. As per prosecution case on 04.02.2020, at around 14.44 hours, Sub-Inspector Police-Station - Banganga has received the order No.SP/East/Reader/Casediary/16/2020 along with an order of Superintendent of Police (East), District - Indore for registering the original FIR No.0/2020 registered at Police-Station-Mahila Thana, District-Bhopal against the petitioner/accused and other co- accused persons for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC. On 21.07.2020, at around 16.15 hours, the respondent No.2 along with her father appeared before the SHO Police-Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal and prepared a written complaint in which she has alleged that her husband co- accused Ashish with mother-in-law Smt. Sita Soni and her sister- in-law the present petitioner /accused had harassed her from 01.01.2015 to 27.01.2020 by making the demand of dowry from her. On the basis of averments made in the written complaint, the FIR was registered by Mahila Thana, Bhopal as Crime No.0/2020 for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After registration of FIR the same was transferred to Police-Station - Banganga, Indore as the complainant submitted that she had come from Bhopal to Indore to reside with her parents.

3. The notice under Section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, were issued to the accused persons and after completion of investigation, final report No335/2020 has been filed for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 34 of IPC and the same was registered as Regular Criminal Trial No.353/2021.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the sister- in-law of the respondent no.2 and she was married in the year 1999 and residing separately. It is argued that there is general tendency to falsely implicate all the family members of the husband and therefore no specific allegation of harassment by the petitioner and FIR did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner and therefore FIR is liable to be set-aside. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.06.2022 in the case of MCRC No.5578 of 2021 (Smt. Sangeeta and Another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) whereby this Court had quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings after referring various judgments passed by the Apex Court, the Coordinate Bench examined the allegations in the FIR and in para- 15 has held that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The criminal proceedings is malafidely initiated against the petitioner on the ground of there being the relatives or sister of the husband of the respondent No.2, thus, there is misuse of the process of law.

5. Upon perusal of the FIR contained in the present case, there

is specific allegation against the husband, mother-in-law and the present petitioner for harassing the complainant with regard to physical assault and demand of dowry. The chargesheet has already been filed and the charges have been framed and the trial Court has also added the charge under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The case has been fixed before the trial court for recording of the evidence.

6. So far as the contention of petitioner that the FIR could not have been transferred from Bhopal to Indore, the said objection has never been raised during investigation. Investigation has been completed and chargesheet has since been filed in the matter. The charges have been framed and even at the stage of framing of charge, no objection has been raised in relation to transfer of case from Bhopal to Indore. Further the petitioner could not show any prohibition under law for transfer of case from one place to another for investigation after registration of case.

7. So far the law in relation to scope and ambit of Sec.482 Cr.P.C has been elaborately considered by the Supreme court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and in the other judgments by the Apex Court referred by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner wherein it is held that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution. In para 108 of the judgment of Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court has culled out the principles for quashment of FIR u/S.482 of Cr.P.C or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In para 109 the

court has observed a note of caution to the effect that power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The extra ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The para 130 of judgment of Bhajanlal (supra) reads as under:-

"The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint."

8. The Apex Court has considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR, complaint and criminal proceedings in the following judgments:-

In Kamaladevi Agrawal Vs.State of W.B. (2002) 1 SCC 555, the Apex Court opined:

"This court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirely, do not prima facie

disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."

In the case of R.KalyaniVs. JanakC.Mehta, (2009) SCC 516, the Apex Court laid down the law in the following terms:

"15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and , in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue."

9. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated in the case of Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2009) 4 SCC 439. Relevant paras 11 and 12 are reproduced as under:

"11. The principle providing for exercise of the power by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceedings is well known. The Court shall ordinarily exercise the said jurisdiction, inter alia, in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the complaint petition even if on face value are taken to be correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an offence."

12. It is also well settled that save and except in very exceptional circumstances, the Court would not look to any document relied upon by the accused in support of his defence. Although allegations contained in the complaint petition may disclose a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. For the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction, the superior courts are also required to consider as to whether the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint petition fulfil the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused."

10. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Apex Court has culled out certain principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction with regard to quashing of the charge either in exercise of power under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Cr.PC, or together, as the case may be. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in paras 27.1, 27.2, 27.3 and 27.6 are reproduced as under:

"27.1.Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.

The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of the rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

Xx xxxxxx Xx xxxxxx 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender."

11. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a latest judgment of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.Ltd. and another. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2018 SC 2039. Para 100 reads as under:

"100. However, there is a series of cases wherein this Court while dealing with the provisions of Sections 227, 228, 239, 240, 241, 242 and 245 CrPC, has consistently held that the court at the stage of framing of the charge has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of an offence by the accused. The court has to see as to whether the material brought on record reasonably connect the accused with the offence. Nothing more is required to be enquired into. While dealing with the aforesaid provisions, the test of prima facie case is to be applied. The court has to find out whether the materials offered by the prosecution to be adduced as evidence are sufficient for the court to proceed against the accused further. (Vide State of Karnataka V. L.

Muniswamy (1997)2 SCC 699): (AIR 1977 SC 1489) All India Bank Officers' Confederation V. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 90: (AIR 1989 SC 2045) StreeAtyacharVirodhiParishad Vs. DilipNathumal Chordia (1989) 1 SCC 715) State of M.P. Vs. Krishna Chandra Saksena (1996) 11 SCC 439) and State of M.P. Vs. MohanlalSoni (2000) 6 SCC 338): (AIR 2000 SC 2583)"

12. Relying on the aforesaid judgments a division bench of this Court at Jabalpur in M.Cr.C. No.51211/2018 Nandlal Gupta Vs.Union of India held that High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and rarest of rare cases. Reliability of allegations made in the FIR or complaint not to be examined. The division bench further held the scope of interference u/Ss.482 for quashing of charger sheet, High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed at this stage. The court has to see as to whether the material brought on record reasonably connects the accused with the offence. Nothing more is required to be noted.

13. In light of the aforesaid enunciation of law and the allegations contained in the FIR and the material available along with chargesheet, I do not find any case for quashment of FIR. The petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stands dismissed.

                                                 (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
 Arun/-                                                 JUDGE

Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR
Date: 2023.04.20 19:16:12
+05'30'