Ashok Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15185 MP

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                                            ON THE 14 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                  MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 36585 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    ASHOK SINGH S/O JAYSINGH KAURAV, AGED -55
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION- KRASHI, R/O- BARAHED
                                 POLICE STATION ENDORI DISTRICT BHIND
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT. NARAYANI W/O SHRI ASHOK SINGH, AGED -
                                 48   YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O
                                 BARAHED, POLICE STATION ENTORI DISTRICT
                                 BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI KAMAL KISHOR PACHORI- ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                                 STATION ENDORI, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT. NEHA KAURAV W/O SHRI HARPREET
                                 KAURAV, AGED -20 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
                                 WIFE, R/O BARAHED POLICE STATION ENDORI,
                                 AT PRESENT SHANTINAGAR WARD NO. 4
                                 GWALIOR ROAD, MEHGAON DISTRICT BHIND
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI P.P.S.VAJEETA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE/
                           RESPONDENT NO.1)

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

The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the FIR registered at Police Station Endori, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 15-09-2023 03:57:16 PM

District Bhind vide Crime No. 101/2020 dated 06/08/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and for quashment of other consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners to the effect that her marriage was solemnized on 21/04/2019 and soon after the marriage, they started harassing her mentally and physically for dowry and ultimately they ousted her on non- fulfillment of dowry demand.

It is further submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the

matter by respondent No. 2. Petitioners are parents-in-law of respondent No.2. Omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and no specific allegations have been levelled. Respondent No.2 is living in her matrimonial house with her parents. Her father has political approach and he threatened the petitioners. Petitioners are patients of Blood Pressure and Diabetes. In support of his contentions he relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 SCC (CRi.) 735, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and G.V.Rao Vs. LHV Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that it can be a case of false FIR; however, to prove their respective innocence, trial is necessary. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Heard.

From the pleadings, it appears that the grounds raised by petitioners to

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 15-09-2023 03:57:16 PM

prove their part of innocence, can only be pleaded and proved by leading evidence and thus the grounds as tried to be raised is matter of evidence and can only be tested on the anvil of cross-examination of the witnesses. Further as submitted trial is in progress and petitioners can raise all the grounds as raised in this petition at an appropriate stage in their defence. Merely by referring that petitioners have been falsely implicated, no conclusion can be drawn pre-empting the controversy. Best way to reach the truth is trial; wherein, cross-examination would bring forth the exact facts.

Scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised sparingly under the extraordinary jurisdiction. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2015 Cr.L.J. (SC) 2031 has held that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. When the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at the initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents on records but is an opinion formed prima facie.

The allegation made against the petitioners do prima facie make out an offence as referred above. Moreso, it is not a case of omnibus allegation, but specific allegation of demand of dowry is made against the petitioners. Further

in the case in hand, after filing of charge-sheet, trial is in progress and therefore, petitioners may plead her part of innocence by leading evidence oral as well as documentary in accordance with law. At this stage no indulgence can be shown, case has to be seen on its own merits.

As regards judgments of Apex Court cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, same are not applicable in the facts and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 15-09-2023 03:57:16 PM

circumstances of the case as from the contents of FIR, it is clear that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and truth behind the allegations can only be tested on the anvil of trial.

Cumulatively, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE Pj'S/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 15-09-2023 03:57:16 PM