Brijmohan Morey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12671 MP

                                1
 IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                    ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2023
              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34382 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
1.    BRIJMOHAN MOREY S/O SHRI HARIOM MOREY,
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O WARD NO 36
      BALMIK MANDIR GENDEWALI SADAK GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    HARIOM MOREY S/O SHRI NATTHARAM MOREY,
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 36,
      BALMIK    MANDIR,   GENDEWALI   SADAK,
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    GEETA BAI W/O SHRI HARIOM MOREY, AGED
      ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 36, BALMIK
      MANDIR,   GENDEWALI   SADAK,   GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    AJAY MOREY S/O SHRI HARIOM MOREY, AGED
      ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 36, BALMIK
      MANDIR,   GENDEWALI    SADAK,  GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI YASH SHARMA - ADVOCATE )

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

2.    NISHA MOREY W/O SHRI BRIJMOHAN MOREY,
      AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 39, ATRE
      NAGAR , ATER ROAD, BHIND DEHAT, BHIND
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                                    2

following:
                                    ORDER

Instant petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No. 5/2022 dated 13/1/2022 by Police Station Mahila Thana, District Bhind for offence under Sections 323, 294, 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and further quashment of criminal proceedings flowing therefrom. 2 . It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter by respondent No. 2.Petitioners are husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law of complainant. FIR is delayed FIR

as after filing of application under Section 9 of HMA, instant FIR has been lodged, which is liable to be quashed. Only omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and no specific allegations have been levelled. Petitioners have been falsely implicated as against the will of complainant her marriage was solemnized. In support of his contentions he relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 SCC (CRi.) 735, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and G.V.Rao Vs. LHV Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693.

3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that it can be a case of false FIR; however, to prove their 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 petitioners to prove their 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 petitioners can raise all the grounds as raised in this petition at an appropriate stage in their defence. Merely by referring that petitioners have 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. Delayed FIR and the submission that after filing application under Section 9 of HMA, instant FIR has been lodged cannot be a ground for quashment of FIR at threshold as incident is prior to filing of application under Section 9 of HMA.

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 judgments of Apex Court cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, same are 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 petitioners and truth behind the allegations can only be tested on the anvil of trial.

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,

PRAKASH st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7 633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB219 3780D8357,

SOLANKI serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D 8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2023.08.08 10:01:10 +05'30'