Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalit Sisodiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 12 th OF JULY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10017 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. LALIT SISODIYA S/O SHRI GHANSHYAM SINGH
SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PVT. NOKRI R/O SUDAMA COLONY PURANI
CHAWANI GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GHANSHYAM SINGH SISODIYA S/O
SURYAPRAKASH SINGH SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT
64 YEARS, SUDAMA COLONY, PURANI
CHHAWANI, GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT RADHA BAI SISODIYA W/O GHANSHYAM
SINGH SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
SUDAMA COLONY, PURANI CHHAWANI, GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRAKASH SINGH SISODIYA S/O GHANSHYAM
SINGH SISDOYIA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
SUDAMA COLONY, PURANI CHHAWANI, GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI NAROTTAM SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT CHETNA SISODIYA W/O LALIT SISODIYA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O GANDHI CHOWK
NEEM TAL VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRAMOD PACHORI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
(BY SHRI MUNNA LAL TOMAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/14/2023
10:20:31 AM
2
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of CrPC by
petitioners for invoking powers of this Court to seek quashment of FIR vide
Crime No.255 of 2019 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, Vidisha District
Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as quashment of other
consequential proceedings in connection with Case No.1184/2019 flowing out
of aforesaid crime.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant marriage was solemnized with
petitioner No.1 Lalit Sisodiya on 11.07.2013 at Samsabad, Vidisha. As per the
capacity of complainant's father, he solemnized the marriage of her daughter
with petitioner No.1 and by giving sufficient dowry to her in-laws. However, in-
laws of the complainant started harassing her on account of giving less dowry
and further demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and motorcycle in dowry. On the
basis of her complaint, in regard to demand and harassment to the complainant,
an FIR bearing Crime No.225/2019 registered at Police Station - Kotwali,
Vidisha District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of
IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent
No.2 lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, her husband, her father-
in-law, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law with the allegation that they
used to harass her in connection with demand of Rs.one lac and one
motorcycle in dowry. Afterwards charge-sheet has been filed in the matter.
Petitioner No.1 presented an application before Family Court under Section 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/14/2023
10:20:31 AM
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the re-establishment of conjugal relations in
which Court in its order dated 08.02.2017 ordered after hearing the complainant
to live with her husband and in her in-laws house. After the said order, she
didn't turn up to go to her in-laws house. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 filed
execution proceedings, despite this execution, complainant didn't come and
avoid the judgment passed by the Family Court. Thereafter, complainant filed
an application under Section 125 of IPC for seeking maintenance where notices
were issued and thereafter, application was dismissed vide its order dated
11.12.2017. Afterwards, complainant filed an application before JMFC,
Ganjbasoda District Vidisha against petitioner No.1 for the offence punishable
under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Thereafter, complainant filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for seeking divorce and when petitioner No.1 appeared before the
proceedings of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, complainant withdrew
her application by submitting that due to some dispute with her parents, she
started living with her brother at Vidisha. Thereafter, on the false pretext the FIR
was lodged against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. It is further
contended by learned counsel that proceedings against the petitioners are if
allowed to continue in the Court, then it would be a sheer abuse of process of
law and it would cause harassment and torture to the petitioners without any
fault on their parts. It is further contended that now-a-days, a tendency is
increasing day-by-day of falsely implicating near and dear relatives of husband
so as to pressurize them. So far as offence under Section 498-A of IPC and
Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of UP and Another decided on 27-
07-2017 (CRA No. 1265 of 2017) has judicially acknowledged the misuse of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/14/2023
10:20:31 AM
provisions of aforesaid Section 498-A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. By
relying on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kans Ra vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207, Geeta Mehrotra vs.
State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand
(2010) 7 SCC 667, it is contended that allegations made against petitioners are
wholly omnibus and have apparently been made to falsely implicate them. A
tendency is increasing in the society to falsely and over-implicate the relatives of
husband so as to pressurize. Therefore, aforesaid FIR as well as all the
consequential proceedings against the petitioners be quashed.
Per contra, the learned State Counsel as well as complainant opposed
the contentions of petitioners and submitted that there are sufficient allegations
against petitioners for their prosecution. Hence, it is not a proper case in which
inherent powers should be used. The present petition cannot be entertained
otherwise meaning of trial shall demolish. Petition is liable to be dismissed and
the legitimate prosecution may not be stifled in the midway.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj (supra) has observed
that a tendency has developed for roping in all relations of the husband on the
part of the wife. Mere naming them in the FIR is not enough to summon them in
the absence of any specific role and material to support such role. Similarly, in
the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that
if in a case of dowry related offences, the names of husband's relatives are
casually mentioned in the FIR and the contents of it, do not disclose their active
involvement, cognizance of matter against them would not be justified. Further,
in the matter of Preeti Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
that it is a matter of common experience that most of complaints under Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/14/2023
10:20:31 AM
498-A of IPC are filed in the heat of moment over trivial issues without proper
deliberations and therefore, such complaints are not even bone fide and are filed
with oblique motive.
If the entire facts and circumstances of the case along with allegations
made against the petitioners are considered in the light of aforesaid judgments
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then it is clear that only vague and omnibus
allegations have been made against them. Only allegations have been levelled
against the petitioners by complainant with an oblique motive in order to harass
present petitioners.
Consequently, the petition filed by petitioners is hereby allowed and FIR
vide Crime No.255 of 2019 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, Vidisha
District-Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC
a n d Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as other consequential
proceedings in connection with Case No.1184/2019 flowing out of said FIR
stands quashed.
A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned as well as police
station concerned for necessary information.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Vijay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/14/2023
10:20:31 AM
