Sonam Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3210 MP

                                                                1
                                    IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                            BEFORE
                                                HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                                                   ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                                MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51321 of 2022

                                   BETWEEN:-
                                   1.    SONAM PARMAR W/O SHRI ASHOK SINGH
                                         PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                         HOUSEWIFE R/O 104/02, SANT NIRANKARI
                                         SATSANG NEW CITY COLONY, A.B. ROAD,
                                         DISTRICT GUNA KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.    ASHOK SINGH PARMAR S/O LATE SHRI GYAN
                                         S I N G H PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
                                         OCCUPATION: RETD. ARMY OFFICER R/O 104/02,
                                         SANT NIRANKARI SATSANG NEW CITY COLONY,
                                         A.B. ROAD, DISTRICT GUNA KOTWALI (MADHYA
                                         PRADESH)

                                   3.    A K A S H VIKRAM    SINGH PARMAR S/O SHRI
                                         ASHOK SINGH PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                                         OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O 104/02 SANT
                                         NIRANKARI SATSANG NEW CITY COLON Y A.B.
                                         ROAD        GUNA, G U N A KOTWALI (MADHYA
                                         PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONERS
                                   (BY SHRI QASIM ALI - ADVOCATE)

                                   AND
                                   1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                         POLICE STATION AYODHYA NAGAR DISTRICT
                                         BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.    SHIVANI JADON W/O SHRI INDRA VIKRAM
                                         SINGH PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 8 INOX
                                         GARDEN K SECTOR AYODHYA NAGAR BHOPAL
                                         M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
  SAN
                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                                   (BY SHRI C.K. MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Date: 2023.02.28 10:15:32 IST
                                   (BY SHRI ANURAG GOHIL - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2)
                                                                      2
                                         This petition coming for admission this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                                   following:
                                                                      ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR registered against them under Sections 498-A & 34 of I.P.C. vide Crime No.57/2022 on 08.02.2022 at the Police Station, Ayodhya Nagar, District Bhopal and to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhopal as Regular Criminal Trial No.2346/2022 against them.

2. As per prosecution case, the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a

written complaint on 08.02.2022 at the Police Station, Ayodhya Nagar, Bhopal against the present petitioners and her husband (Indra Vikram Singh Parmar). It is not in dispute that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are close relatives. The marriage of son of petitioner Nos.1 & 2, namely, Indra Vikram Singh Parmar was solemnized at Guna on 22.11.2019 with the respondent No.2 as per Hindu customs and rituals. It has been stated by the respondent No.2/wife that all the expenditure of marriage were incurred by her parents. After performance of marriage the petitioners and her husband started harassing her mentally and physically. They used to demand money from her and due to non-fulfillment of their demands, they ousted her from the home and since then she is residing at her parental house. On the basis of same, an FIR was lodged against the petitioners and her husband for commission of offences under Sections 498-A & 34 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Signature Not Verified

trial Court and a case has been registered by learned J.M.F.C., Bhopal against SAN

Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 2023.02.28 10:15:32 IST the petitioners and one Indira Vikram Singh Parmar for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A & 34 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are omnibus allegations against the petitioners. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner No.1 is an old aged lady suffering from various health issues. It is also submitted that there is no specific allegations against the petitioners. He has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. [LAWS (SC) 2012 10 53], Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others vs. State of Bihar & others (2022) 6 SCC 599, Smt. Pushpa Sonkariya & others vs. State of M.P. & another passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of This Court vide order dated 06.09.2019 in M.Cr.C. No.44434/2018 & Anita Bai vs. State of M.P. passed by the High Court of M.P. at Indore Bench vide order dated 13.06.2022 in M.Cr.C. No.48916/2021. Hence, he prayed to quash the FIR registered against the petitioners under Sections 498-A & 34 of I.P.C. vide Crime No.57/2022 on 08.02.2022 at the Police Station, Ayodhya Nagar, District Bhopal and entire criminal proceedings pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhopal as Regular Criminal Trial No.2346/2022.

4. On the contrary, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific and detailed allegations against the present petitioners in the written

complaint made by the complainant and also there are statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which prima facie established involvement of the petitioners. He has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar & others Signature Not Verified SAN

[MANU/SC/7269/2008].

Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. In the Date: 2023.02.28 10:15:32 IST

present case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 - Ashok Singh Parmar & Akash Vikram Singh Parmar respectively, who are father-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant. Neither any specific and distinct allegation has been made against them nor they have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and at best can be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, in absence of clear allegations allowing to continue prosecution against them would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

6. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others vs. State of Bihar & others (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court has held that:-

"17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the

Signature Not Verified SAN relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is

Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR made out against them.

JYOTISHI Date: 2023.02.28 10:15:32 IST

7. However, from the perusal of material available on record, it is apparent that there are specific allegations against husband - Indra Vikram Singh Parmar and petitioner No.1 - mother-in-law of the respondent No.2. Hence, proceedings against petitioner No.1 - mother-in-law cannot be quashed.

8. In view of the aforesaid legal principles set out by the Supreme Court in the case Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others vs. State of Bihar & others (2022) 6 SCC 599 and considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is partly allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 under Sections 498-A & 34 of I.P.C. vide Crime No.57/2022 on 08.02.2022 at the Police Station, Ayodhya Nagar, District Bhopal is hereby quashed and entire criminal proceedings pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhopal as Regular Criminal Trial No.2346/2022 is also quashed . However, it is made clear that the proceedings against petitioner No. 1 shall continue.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE rj

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 2023.02.28 10:15:32 IST