Vijay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11111 MP

                                                             1
                             IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 18 th OF JULY, 2023
                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4307 of 2021

                            BETWEEN:-
                            1.    VIJAY SINGH S/O SHRI NARAYAN PRASAD
                                  KHATEEK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                  SERVICE GRAM DHAMNIKA TEH DABRA
                                  DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            2.    SMT. SUMAN S/O SHRI NARAYAN PRASAD
                                  KHATEEK, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, GRAM
                                  DHAMNIKA, TEHSIL DABRA DISTRICT GWALIOR
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

                            AND
                            1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
                                  POLICE STATION PS GIJORRA DISTRICT
                                  GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                            2.    SEEMA SINGH D/O PANCHAM SINGH TALKIES
                                  GALI, KELARAS MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                            (BY SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
                            (BY SHRI ROMESH PRATAP SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                            RESPONDENT NO.2)

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

By this petition u/S 482 of CrPC, petitioners seeking quashment of FIR vide Crime No.122/2019 registered at PS Girjorra, District Gwalior under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/20/2023 10:27:21 AM

In brief, prosecution case is that on 23.12.2019, complainant Seema Singh wife of Kamta Prasad lodged a complaint at Police Station Girjorra against petitioners who are brother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of the of the complainant that her marriage was soleminzed on 08.03.2019 with Kamta Prasad village- Dhamanka Police Station- Girjorra, Gwalior. Family members of the complainant as per their capacity soleminzed her marriage with Kamta Prasad. After marriage when she went to her in-laws house, petitioners started demanding money and asked the complainant to bring money from her parent's home to build their home. Due to non-fulfillment of their demands, petitioners used to harass her and inflicted cruelty. On the aforesaid, FIR bearing crime

No.122/2019 was registered at Police Station- Girjorra, Gwalior. Petitioners got arrested.

It is contended by Counsel for the petitioners that under the false pretext, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioners that husband of the complainant is employee of the SISF and at the time of incident was providing his services at Bina. Petitoners also used to reside separately. In fact, there is dispute between complainant and her husband for which they are residing separately. It is contended that for blackmailing and harassing the petitioners the impugned FIR has been lodged. It is contended that the whole family should not be roped in only on the basis of omnibus and false allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the offence are made out. It is further contended that now- a-days, there is an increasing tendency in the society to over-implicate the near and dear relatives of husband so as to pressurize the husband. The impugned FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive only on the basis of vague and

Signature Not Verified omnibus allegations. Therefore, on the basis of bald allegations, the petitioners Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/20/2023 10:27:21 AM

cannot be prosecuted and the impugned FIR has been lodged against petitioners without conducting a preliminary enquiry properly and squarely by the police authorities. Therefore, complaint is not bona fide in nature and has been filed with an oblique motive by complainant. The complaint made by complainant is a clear abuse of process of law. It is further contended that the prosecution 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 regarding misusing provisions of Section 498-A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in detail in the matter of Rajesh Sharma vs. State of UP (208) 10 SCC 472. By relying on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj 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 by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made against the petitioners are wholly bald as well as omnibus and have apparently been made to falsely implicate them. Impugned FIR has been registered only to harass and torture the petitioners. Unless and until there are specific allegations against them, they should not be compelled to face trial. Therefore, in view of allegations levelled in FIR itself which are vague and

omnibus, the same deserves to be quashed.

O n the other hand, Counsel for the respondent as well as complainant opposed the contentions of petitioners and submitted that there are sufficient allegations against the petitioners for their prosecution. There is prima facie material available on record against them. Hence, it is not a proper case in which Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/20/2023 10:27:21 AM

inherent jurisdiction should be invoked. Petition is liable to be dismissed as charge sheet has been filed and legitimate prosecution may not be stifled in the midway.

Heard counsel for the parties.

In the case of matrimonial disputes, it will be seen as to how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing FIR or complaint or charge sheet as well as other consequential criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kans Raj (supra) has specifically observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all relations of husband on the part of wife. Mere naming them in the FIR is no t 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), t h e Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that if in a case of dowry related offences, the names of husband's relatives are casually mentioned in FIR and the contents of it, do not disclose their active involvement and cognizance of matter against them would not be justified. Further, in the matter of Preeti Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that it is a matter of common experience that most of complaints under Section 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.

The Court is not expected to go into veracity of rival versions but where on the face of it allegations are absurd or do not make out any case of it and criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised.

If the entire allegations made by complainant in her complaint are considered in the light of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/20/2023 10:27:21 AM

above cited cases, then it is crystal clear that in the complaint, there is no specific allegation regarding cruelty and harassment made on the complainant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and the allegations made against the petitioners are vague and omnibus. Only vague and omnibus allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to prosecute them. Only allegations have been levelled against them with a view to harass and torture them.

As discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the entire allegations are considered on their face value, it appears that petitioners have been falsely implicated. Under these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners is the sheer abuse of process of law. Thus, it would not be proper to compel them to face the agony of criminal prosecution. As a result, petition is allowed.

Accordingly, the impugned FIR vide Crime No.122/2019 registered at PS Girjorra, District Gwalior under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are hereby quashed.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court and police station for information and compliance.

Cc as per rules.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Vijay

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 7/20/2023 10:27:21 AM