Anita Bhadouria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12306 MP

                                    1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                       ON THE 2 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3905 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
ANITA BHADOURIA Wd/O LATE SHRI JAGAT PAL SINGH
BHADOURIA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVT JOB, R/O KUNJ BIHAR PHASE II NEAR
DHARMVEER PETROL PUMP GOLE KA MANDIR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NAVNIDHI PARHARYA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA, GWALIOR
      DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    JWALA PARIHAR D/O GOPAL SINGH PARIHAR,
      W/O RAJU SINGH, R/O GANESH COLONY, CHAR
      SHAHAR KA NAKA, KHARGESHAWAR MANDIR
      ROAD HAZIRA, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 1/STATE BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA - PP)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

Instant petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No. 364/2020 dated 14/12/2020 by Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498- A, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the matter by respondent No. 2.Petitioner is Chachiya Saas(mother-in-law) of respondent No. 2. Only omnibus allegations have been levelled and no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner is residing separately at Gwalior and only marriage of respondent No. 2 with son of brother-in-law of petitioner was solemnized at the house of petitioner as husband and family members had no place to solemnized the marriage at Gwalior. Petitioner is a Govt. Employee. For extorting money, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2013 SC 181.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that it can be a case of false FIR; however, to prove her respective innocence, trial is necessary. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard.

5. From the pleadings, it appears that the grounds raised by petitioner to prove her part of innocence, can only be pleaded and proved by leading evidence and thus the grounds as tried to be raised is matter of evidence and can only be tested on the anvil of cross-examination of the witnesses. Further as submitted trial is in progress and petitioner can raise all the grounds as raised in this petition at an appropriate stage in his defence. Merely by referring that petitioner has been falsely implicated, no conclusion can be drawn pre-empting the controversy. Best way to reach the truth is trial; wherein, cross-examination would bring forth the exact facts.

6. Scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised sparingly under the extraordinary jurisdiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2015 Cr.L.J. (SC) 2031 has held that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. When the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at the initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents on records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

7. The allegation made against the petitioner do prima facie make out an offence as referred above. Further in the case in hand, after filing of charge- sheet, trial is in progress and therefore, petitioner may plead her part of innocence by leading evidence oral as well as documentary in accordance with law. At this stage no indulgence can be shown, case has to be seen on its own merits.

As regards judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) is concerned, same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as from the contents of FIR, it is clear that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner.

8. Cumulatively, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-

JAI Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya

PRAKASH Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633 f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB219378 0D8357,

SOLANKI serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C 01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2023.08.03 09:51:13 +05'30'