Nurusaba Sharif vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16612 MP

                                                            1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                              ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50800 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    NURUSABA    SHARIF    W/O     JAIENULABDIN
                                 MEHBOOB SHARIF, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: NONE, R/O 42/3, MAITRKUNJ, WEST
                                 RISALI CHHATRAPAT SHIVAJI, PALACE, BHILAI
                                 DURG (CHHATTISGARH)

                           2.    SAHINA AJIJ S/O AJIJ SAHAB, AGED ABOUT 60
                                 YEAR S , OCCUPATION: SHASKIYA NOKRI, R/O
                                 CHOTA PARA BRISTAL CHOWK, MASJID KE PAS,
                                 RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANTS
                           (SHRI NEERAJ SIRESIYA, ADVOCATE.)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                 HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. MAHILA THANA
                                 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    VICTIM X THROUGH POLICE STATION THROUGH
                                 POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA, DISTRICT
                                 DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI TARUN KUSHWAH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.
                           NONE PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DESPITE SERVICE.)

                                 This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

01. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of FIR at Crime No.78/2021 for the offences

Signature Not Verified punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 09-10-2023 17:05:24

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been registered against the applicants.

02. As per prosecution story, marriage of complainant-Ayesha@Ashi was solmenized with Parvez Shakiluddin on 09.10.2015 thereafter she gave birth to son namely Fariduddin. According to her, she was kept well for 50 months after the marriage. After the death of her father, she was brought up by uncle and aunty. The husband has concealed his earlier marriage and birth of one daughter.

03. Her husband has five sisters out of which these two applicants have major interference in his house and they used to quarrel on petty issues and at their instance, this applicant is demanding Rs.5,00,000/- and when the said

demand was not fulfilled, she was compelled to leave the house and at present she is residing with uncle and aunty (Fufa and Bua).

04. Counsel for the applicants submit that these two applicants are married lady and residing with their husbands in other city. They had nothing to do with personal dispute between husband and wife. They have been falsely implicated because they are retired employees from the Government service. The allegations leveled in the FIR are very vague, no specific date and time has been assigned by the complainant. These applicants are senior citizens and residing at Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Residing documents to that effect are filed alongwith this petition. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v/s State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 741.

05. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 / State submits that these applicants compelled the husband of the complainant to Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 09-10-2023 17:05:24

demand the dowry for which the complainant was compelled to leave the house. At this stage, FIR cannot be quashed as it is a matter of evidence.

06. No one is appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service of notice to oppose the aforesaid.

07. The applicants are not sharing the house of complainant, there is dispute on petty issues. The applicants are residing at Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and are senior citizens. The Apex Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.195/2022) has held that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A 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 relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

08. In view of the above, FIR at Crime No.78/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby quashed qua applicants.

09. With the aforesaid, M.Cr.C. stands disposed off.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Divyansh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 09-10-2023 17:05:24