Smt. Shilpa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13957 MP

                              1
                                          M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 AT I N D O R E
                          BEFORE
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA

           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17866 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
   SMT. SHILPA W/O SHRI AMIT NAGORI, AGED 42 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O 605, WILMAR HOUSING
1.
   SOCIETY,   DATTANI    PARK,  THAKUR     VILLAGE
   KANDIWALI EAST MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
   SMT. NEHA W/O SHRI RITESH GUPTA, AGED 40 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O A-507, ARMADA
2.
   SOCIETY, NEAR MADHUIBAN RESTAURANT AND
   HINZEWADI, WAKAD, PUNE (MAHARASHTRA)
   SMT. ADITI W/O SHRI HIMANSHU AGRWAL, AGED 32
   YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O AGRAWAL
3.
   ELECTRONICS, KHARI PHATAK ROAD, VIDISHA
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SURESH CHANDRA GOYAL S/O LATE GENDALAL
   GOYAL, AGED 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL R/O 15/79,
4. JAIN MANDIR GALI, PIPLIYA MANDI, TEHSIL
   MALHARGADH,      DISTT.   MANDSAUR     (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   ANKIT GOYAL S/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA GOYAL,
   AGED 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 15/79,
5. JAIN MANDIR GALI, PIPLIYA MANDI, TEHSIL
   MALHARGADH,      DISTT.   MANDSAUR     (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                                .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAWAT - ADVOCATE)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
1. STATION BHANWAKUA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
2. SMT. PRACHI GUPTA W/O SHRI ANKIT GOYAL, AGED 34
                                             2
                                                             M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

   YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O 104, CHITAWAD
   ROAD, SHIV MOTI NAGAR, SHANTIKUNJ APARTMENT,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SHUBHAM SOLANKI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVT.
ADVOCATE)
                             Reserved on : 01.08.2023
                            Pronounced on : 25.08.2023
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
                                       ORDER

By invoking the inherent power of this Court, the present petition u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants, seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.354/2013 by P/S Bhawarkuan, Distt - Indore for the offences u/S 498-A, 34, 323 and 506 of IPC against the applicants.

2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Prachi Gupta has lodged the FIR at P/S Bhawarkuan. on 02.04.2023 to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with applicant No.5 Ankit Goyal, on 09.12.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Applicant No.1 - 3 are sisters-in-law and applicant No.4 is father- in-law of the complainant. Since marriage of the complainant and till 20.12.2016, her sisters-in-law Shilpa and Neha used to live with her and Aditi used to live there only as she was not married. The sister-in-law and husband of the deceased started to taunt her and torture her in furtherance of demand of dowry. Complainant was pushed out of her matrimonial home at night several times and on telling her father-in-law, he said this only should be done to you. When applicant No.3 Aditi returned to her

M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

maternal home after marriage, a clash took place between the complainant and Aditi, after which Aditi broke Mangalsutra and laptop of the complainant. On narrating the incident to her husband, husband physically assaulted her. Therefore, on 20.12.2019, she came back to her maternal home in Indore, where she lodged a report at P/S MG Road regarding the incident. But, later a compromise took place between the complainant and her in-laws, where husband agreed to keep her in a proper way in her matrimonial home and took her back to there. On 01.08.2020, applicants No.1 and 2 had come to their maternal home and used to taunt the complainant and abuse her parents. Therefore, on 26.08.2020, she returned again to her maternal home. Parents of the complainant tried to convince the in-laws of complainant, on which the in-laws of complainant abused and did not come to take the complainant back. In Diwali of 2020, she went back to her matrimonial home. Neha had bothered her then to a very great extent and her in-laws physically and mentally tortured her in demand of dowry and gave threat of dire consequences, after which she returned back to her maternal home 20.11.2020 being frightened from the behaviour of her in-laws. She tried to improve the relations a plenty of times, but all in vain. On 04.04.2022, she filed an application for maintenance in Court, on which her in-laws convinced to not press the matter in Court and agreed to take the complainant back to her matrimonial home, but till 2023 no one came to take her back because of which she reported the matter at P/S Bhawakuan.

3. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant crime. Applicants

M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

No.1-3 are married and residing in their respective marital home alongwith their children and husbands. The applicant No.4 is aged about 70 years and is suffering with many diseases. Applicant No.5 is a well educated person being a Software Engineer is serving in a reputed company. The complainant does not like her husband and she wants to get divorced from him. For this purpose, she was continuously harassing the whole family of applicant No.5. Maintenance petition filed by the complainant before the Family Court is totally different from the allegation, which has been levelled in the present FIR and this fact shows that a false FIR has been registered by her. The FIR was lodged belatedly and is time barred.

4. It is also submitted that applicant No.4 and 5 had made their all efforts to convince the complainant. Applicant No.5 has also tried to settle the amount for divorce. The relative of both the families had sat together and decided an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- for permanent alimony and a demand draft of the said amount also prepared on 16.03.2022 (Annexure P-5), but the complainant wanted to get huge amount. She lodged the FIR by levelling false and frivolous allegations against the applicants. The materials available on record does not constitute any offence. Even allegation levelled in the FIR taken as it is true, then also the alleged offence is not made out. Therefore, it is prayed that the alleged FIR (Annexure P-1) may be quashed. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Kahkashan Kausar V State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599] and Preeti Gupta And Anr. V State Of Jharkhand And Anr. [(2010) 7 SCC 667].

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State as

M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

well as learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 countering the contention made on behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that the averments made in the impugned FIR, it is clear that allegations are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the applicants. The applicants have filed only the alleged FIR, but they have not filed any other oral or documentary evidence, which is collected by investigation officer during investigation. Therefore, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed.

6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

7. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar (Supra) it was held by the Supreme Court in Paragraph 13 as under:-

"13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.5, it was also observed:-

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."

8. In the case of Preeti Gupta And Anr. (Supra) it was held by the Supreme Court in Paragraph 24 as under:-

"24. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, this court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the

M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

9. Similarly, this Court has no jurisdiction to appreciate evidence in proceedings u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C., because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies either in the FIR/complaint or in statement of witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of the evidence and the same can be gone into by Magistrate concerned during trial when entire evidence is adduced by the party.

10. In the case of Kamaldevi Agarwal V State of West Bengal and Ors. [(2002) 1 SCC 555], wherein the Apex Court has opined as under:-

"7. 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 it at the face value and accepted in entirety, 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.

"10. In Medchl Chemical & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. this Court again reiterated the position and held:

"Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of first information report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of

M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law.

Needless to record however and it being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made int eh complaint and the High Court at that stage has to authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The observations in Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi lend support to the above statement of law:

"(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused:

(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process in capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and

(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defect, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like."

The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings."

11. It is settled principle of law that this Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of the evidence at the time considering the petition filed u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceeding. If prima facie case

M.C.R.C. No.17866/2023

is made out, disclosing ingredients of offence alleged against accused, the court cannot quash the criminal proceeding.

12. In the instant case, the applicants challenged the FIR and have filed a copy of the impugned FIR. It is settled law that at the time of considering quashing of FIR or complaint, the evidence collected in support of the same during investigation is also determinable factor but the applicants have not filed any evidence collected during investigation they have also not filed statement of complainant and other witnesses recorded u/S 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, only on the basis of the FIR, which shows prima facie case for the alleged offence made out against the applicants, the impugned FIR or criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. Similarly, belated lodging of FIR is also not a ground to quash the FIR.

13. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as allegations levelled against the applicants. Also considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as stated above, I do not find any justification to quash the impugned FIR. This Court, at this stage, is not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine the correctness or genuineness of the impugned FIR. Hence, this petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE

Shruti SHRUTI Digitally signed by SHRUTI JHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=46283ba6a215e3d40573a7f0ced0632c8b8e4 1b29405387437111f0f1c897b84, postalCode=452001,

JHA st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=975D0201B09C38473541A4907EE0732 D1EA079B8EE35C9E2D19845AF26B0FBF4, cn=SHRUTI JHA Date: 2023.08.26 13:17:34 +05'30'