Smt. Reeta Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14344 MP

                                            1


        IN THE HIGHCOURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                             AT G WA L I O R
                                     BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
                            MCRC No. 4197 of 2020



     BETWEEN:-
     SMT. REETA PARIHAR W/O SHRI DHAN SINGH
     PARIHAR,  AGED     51   YEARS,  OCCUPATION:
     HOUSEWIFE R/O B-565, ANAND NAGAR, BAHODAPUR
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                    .....APPLICANT
     (BY SHRI RAVI BALLABH TRIPATHI-ADVOCATE )

     AND
     1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
     POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA PADAV DISTRICT
     GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
TH
ES
     2. SMT. PRATIBHA PARIHAR W/O PRASHANT SINGH
     PARIHAR D/O SHRI RAM GOPAL SINGH R/O SHIVAJI
     NAGAR AMKHO GWALIOR DISTIRCT GWALIOR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS

     (BY SHRI RAJIV UPADHYAY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
     RESPONDENT-STATE)
     (SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE FOR THE
     RESPONDENT NO.2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Reserved on            :       08.08.2023
               Pronounced on :                01.09.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for
                                              2


pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar pronounced the
following:
                                        ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR pertaining to Crime No.237 of 2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior and the consequential proceedings in RCT No.4957 of 2019 pending before Ms. Shivangi Shrivastava, JMFC, Gwalior.

2. The petition inter alia states that:-

(i) The complainant/respondent No.2 married to Prashant, son of petitioner according to Hindu rituals on 12.03.2019 at a marriage ceremony performed at Gwalior. It was second marriage of Prashant. Petitioner is mother-in-law of respondent No.2.

(ii) Smt. Pratibha Parihar (respondent No.2) filed a written complaint dated 15.10.2019 before SHO Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, District Gwalior alleging that petitioner along with other family members harassed her with regard to demand of dowry. This complaint was registered as FIR in Crime No.237 of 2019 for offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior and RCT No.4957 of 2019 was registered which is pending before Ms. Shivangi Shrivastava, JMFC, Gwalior.

3. The impugned FIR is assailed mainly on the following grounds:-

(a) The complaint against the petitioner is filed to seek personal

vendetta by the complainant for the reason of failure to settle her married life with son of the petitioner.

(b) Complainant is living separately with her husband. All the allegations made in FIR do not disclose any kind of offence committed by the petitioner.

(c) Son of petitioner had filed various complaints against respondent No.2. When no action was taken by the police authorities, he had filed petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Gwalior. The FIR is registered against the petitioner to pressurize for withdrawal of case filed by son of petitioner against respondent No.2.

(d) The allegations in written complaints are afterthought, the FIR is delayed by eight months.

(e) There is no specific averment or allegation against the petitioner with respect to demand of dowry. A frivolous story has been cooked up to pressurize the petitioner.

(f) The written complaint contains general and omnibus allegations against the petitioner.

(g) The FIR is registered without enquiry or scrutiny by the police authorities.

4. On aforementioned grounds, it is requested that FIR in Crime No.237 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav against the petitioner be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC (Cri) 281, State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy

and Others (1997) 2 SCC 699, Neelu Chopra and Anr.Vs. Bharti, AIR (2009) SC (Supp) 2950 and Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 contends that the allegations made against mother-in- law (petitioner) in the FIR are general and omnibus. No specific allegation is attributed to the petitioner. Petitioner is House wife, living separately with her husband. In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. Learned Counsel further contends that FIR was registered without complying with the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State ably assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submits that the allegations contained in FIR clearly make out a case of cruelty punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC against the petitioner. Charge sheet has been filed. The trial Court has taken cognizance, therefore, no case is made out for quashment of FIR in exercise of inherent powers.

7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

8. The law on the exercise of power under Section 482 to quash an FIR is well-settled. This Court has the power under Section 482 to issue such orders as are necessary to prevent the abuse of legal process or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice.

9. In case of State of Haryana v. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court laid down the principles for the exercise of the jurisdiction by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and observed :

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by

this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) CrPC except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) CrPC.

(3) 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. (4) 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) CrPC.

(5) 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.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution 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. (7) 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."

10. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540, it is observed that -

"8. ... While exercising the powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically

laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

11. The fact situation in present case is being examined in light of aforesaid proposition of law. The impugned FIR was registered on 15.10.2019 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav on the basis of written complaint submitted by respondent No.2/complainant Pratibha Rathore. It was alleged in the FIR that complainant married to Prashant Singh Parihar on 12.03.2019. Her parents had given household goods and cash of Rs.4,00,000/- as per the demand of the family of the bridegroom. She stayed at her matrimonial home after her first Vidai at marriage. She came to her parental home on 18.03.2019. She went back to her matrimonial home on 12.04.2019 with her husband on her second Vidai. Her mother- in-law (petitioner) Reeta Parihar asked for Rs.5,000/- to bless her (Paanv Chhuvai). On her refusal, her mother-in-law abused her and tried to assault her. Her husband Prashant Singh, father-in-law Dhan Singh and mother-in-law Reeta Singh taunted her and demanded Rs.20,00,000/- for purchase of plot. Her husband and in-laws started harassing her physically and mentally with regard to demand of Rs.20,00,000/- and expelled her from matrimonial home on 18.04.2019. She is residing with her parents ever since. She reported to Police Station Women Cell, Padav, District Gwalior. Both the parties were called for counselling on

25.05.2019, but dispute could not be settled.

12. The aforementioned allegations in FIR reveal that respondent No.2 has resided at her matrimonial home for six days after her first Vidai and six days after her second Vidai. Thus, in all, she had resided for twelve days only at her matrimonial home. It is alleged that she was expelled from her matrimonial home on 18.04.2019, but no complaint was registered despite alleged cruelty at that time. The FIR itself shows that complainant approached police authorities for the first time on 25.05.2019 almost a month after she returned to her parental home. Despite failed counselling at Police Station, Women Cell, Padav, complainant did not lodge any complaint or FIR immediately thereafter. Rather, this FIR was registered on the basis of written complaint almost five months after failed attempt of counselling and six months after her return to parental home. No explanation for delay is mentioned in the complaint or FIR. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 was at loss to provide a plausible explanation in this regard.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 misbehaved with her husband and family, therefore, Prashant (husband of respondent No.2) lodged various complaints against her with Police Station Padav, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav and also filed petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Gwalior. Copies of all these documents are submitted along with complaint. Learned counsel further contends that as a counterblast to all these actions, the FIR was lodged involving the petitioner to create pressure on her son for settlement. Filing of these complaints and the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act by husband of respondent No.2 is not controverted by the respondents.

14. The specific incident alleged against the petitioner in FIR relates to second Vidai on 12.04.2019, when the petitioner (mother-in-law of respondent No.2) asked for Rs.5,000/- to bless her. The solitary trivial incident may not be treated as cruelty making out offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.

15. Rest of the allegations relate to general and omnibus allegation of harassment with regard to demand of Rs.20,00,000/-. No specific incident, conduct or role of the petitioner regarding mental or physical harassment amounting to cruelty is alleged in FIR. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint also creates question mark on the veracity of allegations. Therefore, the FIR seems to be counterblast to the proceedings taken by son of the petitioner. In such a scenario, it is a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction by this Court. The FIR and the consequential proceedings being an abuse of process of Court deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

16. Consequently, in view of law laid down in case of Chandralekha Vs. state of Rajasthan (2013) 14 SCC 374 and Kahkashan (supra), petition under Section 482 CrPC is allowed with the direction that the FIR in Crime No.237/2019 registered by Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings thereto, so far as they relate to petitioner Reeta Parihar, are hereby quashed.

17. This MCRC stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

18. Certified copy as per rules.

   Avi                                                                             (SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
                                                                                              JUDGE


AVINASH
          Digitally signed by AVINASH BHARGAV
          DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
          PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
          COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
          GWALIOR,


BHARGA    2.5.4.20=dffa1c1db02022dba2bc01e8c6
          f08163660c8ea9fca50f24e92316af7c726
          1d9, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
          Pradesh,



V
          serialNumber=A6F9A14FA84FE88453F9
          151580BB42FC680B1F87B5085E6D20BB
          A9E9022EF9E1, cn=AVINASH BHARGAV
          Date: 2023.09.01 17:36:42 +05'30'