Smt. Monika Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14363 MP

                                             1
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT G WA L I O R
                                       BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR


                 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44912 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SMT. MONIKA RATHORE W/O RAVINDRA RATHORE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION - HOUSEWIFE, R/O
NEW HOUSING BOARD CHAURAHA CITY KOTWALI
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                      .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PREM SINGH BHADOURIA - ADVOCATE)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
1.
   STATION P.S. GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SMT. VARSHA RATHORE W/O SHRI VIKAS RATHORE,
2. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/ORANIPURA GOSPURA NO. 1
   HAZIRA GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH KUSHWAHA - DEPUTY
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Reserved on                    :      07.08.2023
               Pronounced on                  :      02.09.2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming on
for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar pronounced
the following:
                                        ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is filed for quashment of

FIR in Crime No. 174/2021 of Police Station - Gwalior for the offence

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34, 427, 294 of IPC and Section

3/4 of of Dowry Prohibition Act and consequential proceedings in RCT

No.4851/2021.

The petition inter alia states as under:-

1. Respondent No.2/complainant Varsha Rathore was married to Vikash

Rathore on 25.02.2020. Petitioner Monika Rathore is sister-in-law

(nanad) of the complainant.

2. Varsha Rathore reported to Police Station - Gwalior that after her

marriage, her mother-in-law Sunita, brother-in-law Akash, husband

Vikash and sister-in-law Monika started demanding Rs.3,00,000/- and

a four wheeler vehicle.

3. On 25.06.2020, she had given Rs.1.5 lakhs, borrowed from her father

to her husband. Despite this payment, demand of money continued.

Her in-laws used to get her beaten by her husband and abuse her in

filthy language. On 15.03.2021, Sunita, Akash, Vikash and Monika

manhandled her, so she called her sisters Kanchan and Renu, they

took her to JAH Hospital. The accused damaged scooty of Kanchan

and threatened to kill her if she reports.

On such allegations, Police Station - Gwalior registered FIR in Crime

No.174/2021 for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34,

427, 294 of IPC and Section 3/4 of of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

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

1. Petitioner is sister-in-law of the complainant. She is already married

in year 2006 and residing with her husband at District- Sheopur since

year 2007.

2. Petitioner is residing separate. She had never harassed the

complainant. The complainant does not wish to live with her husband

and used to quarrel with him. Complainant has left her matrimonial

home at her own will and lodged this false FIR involving all the

family members of her husband.

On such grounds, it is requested that impugned FIR and all the other

consequential proceedings may be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of State of

Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR (1992) SCC 604 and Neelu Chopra

Vs. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 contends that no specific allegation or

incident is mentioned against the petitioner. She has been involved to create

pressure on the family. FIR against her, deserves to be quashed.

The respondent/complainant Varsha Rathore was served with the

notice of the petition. She appeared before the Court and also participated in

mediation proceedings, but as per mediation report dated 22.08.2022, the

mediation proceeding could not succeed. On date of hearing 07.08.2023,

respondent No.2 remained absent, therefore, matter was heard.

In reply to petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., respondent No.2

Varsha Rathore has opposed the petition on the ground that she was

admitted in JAH Hospital on 15.03.2021 and discharged from there on

20.03.2021. She had filed petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner and other family

members which is registered at Case No.1081/2022. She was expelled from

her matrimonial home. She was not permitted to meet her son Shivansh,

therefore, she had filed habeas corpus writ petition in WP No. 12411/2021,

wherein, custody of her son Shivansh was given to her vide order dated

11.08.2021. The petitioner has manhandled her, therefore, she was admitted

in the JAH Hospital on 15.03.2021. The petition deserves to be rejected.

Heard both the parties and perused the record.

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."

The Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal

Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, laid down the step to be followed for exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, regarding quashment of

proceedings as under:-

29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and

impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

In the backdrop of aforesaid proposition of law, the contentions of

both the parties are considered.

The perusal of FIR reveals that general and omnibus allegations are

made against the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner along with her

mother and father used to get complainant beaten by her husband. The

statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is almost

identical to her statement in FIR.

Petitioner has submitted certificate of Tehsildar, Veerpur which is

certified that Ravindra Singh Rathore husband of the petitioner was working

as Reader to Tehsildar- Veerpur, District -Sheopur from 14.02.2014 till

17.08.2020 and another certificate of Tehsildar, Karahal is submitted to the

effect that Ravindra Singh Rathore is working as Reader to Naib Tehsildar,

Pahela with effect from 17.08.2020 and he is residing at Government

accommodation G-4, New Revenue Colony, Karahal, District Sheopur. The

certificates are issued by Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar who is responsible

Government Officer, therefore, veracity of these certificates cannot be

doubted. In reply to petition, it is not controverted that petitioner is married

to Ravindra Singh Rathore. In such a scenario, it was expected to state that

despite her marriage, petitioner was residing at the matrimonial home of the

complainant and on all alleged occasions, she was present at the

matrimonial home of complainant.

The specific incident that is alleged in FIR relates to 15.06.2021, it is

alleged on 15.03.2021, these people manhandled her, so she called her

sisters Kanchan and Renu. They took her to JAH Hospital.

One discharge ticket of JA Group of Hospitals, Gwalior is submitted

along with the reply to petition which mentions that Varsha Rathore wife of

Vikash Rathore was admitted on 15.03.2021 for the reason of ingestion of

unknown substance. It does not mention injury due to manhandling. Further,

no allegation of forceful ingestion of any substance is reflected in FIR.

It is further alleged that Kanchan (sister of complainant) left her

scooty at her matrimonial home which was damaged. But, it is not

specifically alleged that petitioner has damaged the scooty.

Thus, the trial of petitioner in above circumstances, on the allegations

contained in FIR and statement of complainant recorded under Section 161

of CrPC would be an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the

ends of justice.

Consequently, in view of law laid down in case of Chandralekha Vs.

state of Rajasthan (2013) 14 SCC 374 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam

& Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, petition under Section 482

CrPC is allowed with the direction that the FIR in Crime No.174/2021

registered by Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior for the offence

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34, 427, 294 of IPC and Section

3/4 of of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and all consequential proceedings

thereto, so far as they relate to petitioner Monika Rathore, are hereby

quashed.

This MCRC stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE vijay VIJAY Digitally signed by VIJAY TRIPATHI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

TRIPA 2.5.4.20=663cb09dd950bfc3ea7ed 4f02d97ddae5364f1d4b042dbc599 21b76e812d2d6b, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

THI serialNumber=58392D8C4E7C9693 BFEEB5B46B3CA006F1127E890089 52BBEC528CE4D82551BD, cn=VIJAY TRIPATHI Date: 2023.09.02 17:14:59 +05'30'