Smt. Sangeeta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10175 MP

                                 1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                       ON THE 5 th OF JULY, 2023
              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46967 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
1.    SMT.   SANGEETA    W/O  SHRI   PRAVEEN
      CHARANALIYA, AGE 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      HOUSEWIFE R/O VIKAS NAGAR, GWALIOR
      DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    PRAVEEN S/O SHRI VYASCHAN CHARNALIYA,
      AGE 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O
      VIKAS NAGAR, GWALIOR DISTRICT GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ARUN KUMAR PATERIYA - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ABHISHEK
TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      PRABHARI ADHIKARI, POLICE STATION DABRA
      DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SMT NIHARIKA CHARNALIYA D/O SHRI DILIP
      THARANI     W/O    AMAN      CHARNALIYA
      OCCUPATION: TEACHING, R/O SANT KANWRAM
      SCHOOL KE PEECHHE, DABRA DISTRICT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/ STATE)
(SHRI ANVESH JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

      This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the

petitioners for quashing the FIR registered at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior vide Crime No.340/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and other consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are in-laws of complainant. After marriage, complainant stayed with them only for one day and thereafter since her husband (son of petitioners) is working at Aurangabad, Maharashtra, she started living with her husband there. Only omnibus allegation regarding demand of dowry and cruelty have been levelled against the petitioners therefore, in the light of decision of Apex Co0ourt in the

matter of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2022 LIveLaw (SC) 141 no case is made out against the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant on the other hand 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 is at the stage of prosecution evidence, petitioners can raise all the grounds as raised in this petition at an appropriate stage in their defence. Merely by referring that petitioner has been falsely implicated as complainant lived for only one day with them, 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 cannot 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) 2 0 3 1 h a s 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 marshel the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents on records but is an opinion formed prima facie. So far as reliance place by petitioner over the decision of Apex Court in the matters of Kahkashan Kausar (supra) is concerned, Supreme Court in that case had held that if the allegations made against them are general and omnibus, they do not warrant prosecution; whereas, in the case in hand, from the contents of FIR, prima facie ingredients of offence are available against them and therefore, judgment cited by petitioners is of no held to them.

In the opinion of this Court disputed question of fact cannot be decided while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court has to accept all the allegations as true and thereafter, has to come to a conclusion. The defence raised by the accused persons cannot be considered at the stage of exercising

powers undre Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the legitimate prosecution should be be stifled at such an early stage. In the case of Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora, (2013) 10 SCC 581, Apex Court has held that it is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the Court should not "Kill a stillborn child", and appropriate

prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

7. The allegation made against the petitioners 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 his 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.

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

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-

JAI PRAKASH 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 Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce1

SOLANKI 4fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB2193780D8357, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C01433EBD48A E4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2023.07.07 15:44:00 +05'30'