Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akash Sethi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3359 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. AKASH SETHI S/O SHRI ASHWANI SETHI, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING IN SBI
LIFE AS AGENT, R/O PLOT NO. 31, 32 & FLAT NO. S-
4, SWAPNIL APARTMENT TRILANGA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. KIRTI SETHI W/O SHRI ASHWANI SETHI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 31, 32 &
FLAT NO. S-3, SWAPNIL APARTMENT TRILANGA,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SANJAY KUMAR TANDAN S/O LATE SHRI
KISHORILAL TANDAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O PLOT NO. 31, 32 & FLAT NO. F-3, SWAPNIL
APARTMENT TRILANGA, TRILOCHAN NAGAR,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR TANDAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SHAHPURA, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PUNEET SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short the 'CrPC') seeking quashing of FIR dated 25.07.2022
registered vide Crime No.430/2022 at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhopal
and also seeking quashing of order of trial Court framing charges against the
present petitioners/accused persons.
2. As per the facts of the case, petitioner No.1 got married with late Sakshi
Saraswat (deceased) on 13.12.2020 at Bhopal. The marriage was solemnized as
per Hindu Customs. Thereafter, on 07.07.2022, the deceased/wife of petitioner
No.1 committed suicide by hanging herself. The report was made to the police
on 25.07.2022 and the FIR was registered vide Crime No.430/2022 at Police
Station Shahpura, District Bhopal under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the contents of FIR, a marg was registered vide Marg No.22/2022
and thereafter an enquiry was conducted, in which, it was found that the
deceased was being mentally and physically harassed by the petitioners and
they were demanding dowry, therefore, she committed suicide and as such, the
offence got registered against the petitioners. Thereafter, on 11.07.2023,
charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 498-A,
304B/34 and 306/34 of IPC.
4. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that a false case got
registered against the petitioners because before committing suicide, there was
no demand raised by the petitioners and neither any complaint was made by the
deceased or her family members before any of the authorities about any type of
demand or about the harassment as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that
the relations between the husband and wife were very cordial and the petitioners
are financially sound. According to the petitioners, it was a love marriage and
there was no demand ever made at the time of marriage, as such, no question
arises to make any such demand. He submits that there are certificates issued
by the doctors showing that the deceased was suffering from some mental
disorder and as such, committed suicide. He submits that registration of FIR
that too after a delay of 18 days itself indicates that the complainant had no
material, but only after ill-advise given to them, they lodged a false report and
therefore, according to the petitioners, the FIR deserves to be quashed. In
support of his submissions, the counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
upon several decisions of the High Courts as well as of the Supreme Court in
which the FIR has been quashed by the Court.
5. I have heard the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and
also perused the record.
6. However, considering the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioners and taking note of the allegations made in the FIR, I am of the
opinion that merely because the FIR got registered after 18 days of the date of
incident, the same cannot be doubted and cannot be quashed for the reason that
the marg was registered immediately after the death of deceased and after
making an enquiry and collecting the material against the petitioners, the FIR got
registered.
7. Although, the counsel for the petitioners has disputed the factual aspect of
the matter and submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners are
false and contrary to the-then existing position and situation because according
to him, there was no quarrel between the husband and wife and no demand was
ever raised by the petitioners of dowry from the deceased or from her parents,
but despite repeated query made by the Court to the counsel for the petitioner
as to on what ground the FIR can be quashed when the Court has already
applied its mind, framed charges on the basis of material available against the
petitioners, he failed to convince the Court and to raise any ground on the basis
of which, the FIR can be quashed.
8 . The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal &
Others reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 has considered the yardsticks
under which the FIR can be quashed. The rrelevant paragraphs are as under:-
"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 of the Code 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) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (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) of the Code. (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 Act concerned, 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.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the
power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary
jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
9. Recently, this Court has dismissed the writ petition i.e. W.P. No.10662
of 2023 (Bhagwat Prasad Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others) relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2023
SC 1987 (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc.), in which,
the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court while exercising the power
under Section 482 of CrPC is not required to conduct a mini trial. The
observation made by the Supreme Court is as follows:-
"4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the
High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the
proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini
trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against
the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on
conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage
of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 Page 5 of 8 discharge
and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to
conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned
judgment and order has observed that the charges against the
accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution /
investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges.
The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of
the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore,
the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations
and the material collected during the course of the investigation
against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or
while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court
has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether
any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the
accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
4.2 One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the
initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings is malicious. At
this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed
over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court.
on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been
chargesheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at
this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings / proceedings
is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious
or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case,
at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case
and the material collected during the course of the investigation,
which warranted the accused to be tried."
10. Further, in a case reported in AIR 2023 SC 2371 (Iqbal @ Bala and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others), the Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
"8. It is relevant to note that the victim has not furnished any
information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the
alleged offence. At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that
the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is ready to be
filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any
confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date,
time, etc. of the alleged offences, yet we are of the view that the
appellants should prefer discharge application before the Trial Court
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We
say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over
and charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In
such circumstances, the Trial Court should be allowed to look into
the materials which the investigation officer might have collected
forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge application is
filed, the Trial Court shall look into the materials and take a call
whether any case for discharge is made out or not."
11. Considering the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the present case does
not fall within any of the yardsticks as laid down by the Supreme Court on the
basis of which the FIR can be quashed for the reason that the allegations made
against the petitioners as contained in the FIR, do constitute the offence
registered against them.
12. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, that will be considered only
after conducting trial and recording of the statement of witnesses, but at this
stage, the correctness of the allegations made cannot be determined by the
Court only on the basis of submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners.
13. The petition, in my opinion, is without any substance and accordingly, it is
dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
