Atibal Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9662 MP

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT GWALIOR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 27 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39743 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    ATIBAL SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI DEPUTY SINGH
                                YADAV, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                DEPUTY      COMMISSIONER       MUNICIPAL
                                CORPORATION GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SUMAN YADAV W/O SHRI ATIBAL SINGH YADAV,
                                AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
                                D-22/23 YASHODA RESIDENCY BEHIND NEW
                                COLLECTORATE UNIVERSITY ROAD GWALIOR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    VARUN YADAV S/O ATIBAL SINGH YADAV, AGED
                                ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS D-
                                22/23 YASHODA RESIDENCY BEHIND NEW
                                COLLECTORATE UNIVERSITY ROAD GWALIOR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    GAURI YADAV W/O SHRI VARUN YADAV
                                OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE D-22/23 YASHODA
                                RESIDENCY BEHIND NEW COLLECTORATE
                                UNIVERSITY  ROAD   GWALIOR    (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                              .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI RAJMANI BANSAL AND SHRI S.K. SHRIVASTAVA- LEARNED
                          COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION MAHILA
                                THANA PADAV GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SMT. REKHA YADAV W/O SHRI ARUN SINGH
                                YADAV D/O HEMANT SINGH YADAV PRESENT
                                ADDRESS 615 GARDEN PALACE SIROL ROAD
                                GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 6/28/2023
6:17:41 PM
                                                              2
                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI SURESH AGARWAL- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
                          NO.2)

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

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioners challenging the FIR registered at Crime No.144/2022 with Police Station Mahila Thana Padav District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Admittedly petitioner No.1 is father-in-law, petitioner No.2 is mother-in- law, petitioner No.3 is brother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law of the

complainant.

Brief facts of case are that on 29.05.2022 the complainant preferred an application with respondent No.1 alleging that on 30.06.2020 the marriage of complainant was solemnized with the son of petitioner No.1 and 2. As per their capacity, her parents solemnized marriage. When the complainant reached her matrimonial house, the present petitioners used to harass the victim for not bringing sufficient dowry and started demanding Rs.20 lac cash. Thereafter on 18.08.2021 the victim was beaten for not bringing the dowry and thereafter the victim came to her parental house. On 18.02.2022 the victim again went to her in-laws house however she was not treated well. Thereafter the victim started living separately with her husband. However, in that house also the victim was continuously harassed by her husband. Thereafter on 29.05.2022, the instant FIR has been lodged.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated. False report has been lodged. No dowry was demanded. Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/28/2023 6:17:41 PM

Complainant willfully left her matrimonial house. Several efforts were made to bring her back but to no avail. The mediation proceedings were also done but due to behavior of the respondent no.2 all the mediation talks became futile. The husband of the complainant also filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In that case respondent No.2/complainant appeared and expressed her willingness to reside with the husband and therefore, on the basis of compromise the case was closed. The petitioners are residing separately with respondent No.2/ complainant. When the proceedings for restitution of conjugal right were pending, the victim came back to her matrimonial house and while residing there, she assaulted petitioner No.2 for which a complaint was filed by petitioner No.2 with the police. When no action was taken, petitioner No.2 filed case under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the competent Court. Prior to registration of impugned FIR, petitioners have ended their relation with their son and daughter-in-law and in this regard the public information was made in the leading newspaper i.e. Nav Bharat. The petitioners have not committed any offence either mentally or physically regarding demand of dowry with complainant and they have been falsely implicated. A false FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. If the entire allegations mentioned in the FIR taken into consideration in its totality, even then no case is made out under Section 498-A

of IPC against petitioner. 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, 2017 SCC Online 821 and without following directions of the Apex Court, the police authorities has directly lodged the FIR without conducting any preliminary enquiry. Therefore, to prevent the abuse of process of law, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/28/2023 6:17:41 PM

impugned FIR as well as the Final Report and entire proceedings may be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of this Court in the matter of Kailash Chandra Maheshwari and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others 2006 (1) MPHT 349 and Ravikant Dubey and Others vs. State of MP and Others, 2014(2) MPHT 449.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the contentions of petitioners and submitted that there are sufficient allegations against petitioners for their prosecution. There is prima facie material available on record against them. 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 as final report has been filed and the legitimate prosecution may not be stifled in the midway.

In reply, counsel for the petitioners submits that inherent powers can be used at any stage to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. FIR can be quashed even if the charge sheet has been filed. In support of contention, he has placed reliance in the judgments of Satish Mehra vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another AIR 2013 SC 506 and Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and Others (2011) 7 SCC 59 Some guidelines have been provided as under by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others 1992 SCC (Crl) 426 where the inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised:-

''(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/28/2023 6:17:41 PM

their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation 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;

( c ) 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;

(d) 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;

( e ) 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;

( f ) 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 institu- tion 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;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/28/2023 6:17:41 PM

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.'' From the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is clear that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended 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, then inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised.

Keeping in view the proposition of law and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that even entire facts mentioned in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make a case against the petitioners. Only allegations have been levelled by complainant with an oblique motive in order to harass present petitioners. Consequently, the petition filed by petitioners is hereby

allowed and impugned FIR registered at Crime No.144/2022 with Police Station Mahila Thana Padav District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 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 ojha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 6/28/2023 6:17:41 PM