Salman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4497 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Salman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                --1--

 IN THE       HIGH COURT          OF MADHYA PRADESH

                        AT I N D O R E
                            BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

                 ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2024



             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51921 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
   SALMAN KHAN S/O SABIR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 23
   YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 201, APARTMENT 21 SHRINAGAR
1.
   EXTENSION PS TILAK NAGAR INDORE DISTT.INDORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SABIR KHAN S/O LATE SHRI IBRAHIM KHAN, AGED
   ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 201, APARTMENT, 21
2.
   SHRINAGAR EXTENSION, PS TILAK NAGAR, IDNORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   JABUNISA W/O SABIR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
   R/O. FLAT NO. 201, APARTMENT 21 SHRINAGAR
3.
   EXTENSION PS TILAK NAGAR INDORE DISTT.INDORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SOHEL KHAN S/O SABIR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 25
   YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 201 ANMOL APARTMENT, 21
4.
   SHRINAGAR EXTENSION, PS TILAK NAGAR, INDORE
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
1. OFFICER     THROUGH    PS   MAHILA  THANA
   DISTT.UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SAHIBA BI W/O SALMAN 24, MIRZA NAIM BAIG
2.
   MARG, UJJAIN KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
(BY SHRI UMESH SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.2.
RESERVED ON :- 31/01/2024
                                                                        --2--

PRNOUNCED ON :-15/02/2024.
______________________________________________________________
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, HON'BLE JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA,
pronounced the following:-
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioners / accused for quashing of FIR No.84/2023, registered at police station Mahila Thana, District Ujjain, the charge sheet filed pursuant thereto and criminal proceedings arising out of the same.

2. As per the prosecution, on 24/8/2023 a report was lodged by the complainant to the effect that she had been married to petitioner No.1 Salman Khan on 5/10/2021 according to muslim rites and ceremonies. In the marriage on asking of the petitioners, her parents had given considerable amount of household articles, jewellery and a motorcycle. After the marriage the petitioners kept her properly for fifteen days but thereafter started harassing her mentally by taunting her for getting less dowry in the marriage. Her husband used to say that he has not been given sufficient dowry in the marriage as per his status. The petitioners started demanding a Creta four wheeler vehicle by way of dowry. They used to abuse her on that count. Petitioner No.4 Sohail also came and abused her stating that till she gets a four wheeler she would be harassed. She did not lodge any report at that time for the purpose of saving her marriage. On 10/6/2022 her husband asked her to get a four wheeler and abused her. Then her mother-in-law came and caught her hair and beat her. Sohail was also present there and abused her. On 11/6/2022 her mother-in-law and Sohail asked her husband to leave her to her house at Ujjain and to bring her back only when she gets a four wheeler. Her

--3--

husband therefore left her at Ujjain and has not taken her back. She had made an application before Mahila Pramarsh Kendra wherein on 12/8/2023 after counselling, her husband and father-in-law came to her house and told her that she can do whatever she wants but she would not be taken back unless she gets four wheeler in the dowry.

3. On lodging of the report by the complainant, the investigation was commenced by the police and after completion of the same charge sheet has been filed by it before the Court concerned for the offences punishable as aforesaid.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the initiation and continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners are gross abuse of the process of law. There is delay in lodging of the FIR on 14/8/2023 for which there is no plausible explanation. Prior to that a legal notice had already been sent by petitioner No.1 Salman Khan to the complainant for divorce. Reply was sent by the complainant on 13/6/2023 in which no allegation whatsoever was levelled by her as regards demand of dowry. Thereafter another notice was sent by petitioner No.1 to the complainant for divorce. Had the allegation of demand of dowry been correct, the complainant would have certainly narrated about the same in her reply notice dated 13/6/2023. It is hence an apparent case of false implication by the complainant in view of which the FIR deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Vivek Kumar Mandloi & Ors. V/s. State of M.P. & Anr. (M.Cr.C.No.27229/2023) decided on 28/12/2023, Monish Inani & Anr. V/s. State of M.P. & Anr. (M.Cr.C.No.58086/2022) decided on 5/9/2023, Rajan & Anr. V/s. State of M.P. & Anr. (M.Cr.C.No.35596/2018) decided on 17/8/2023 and Sharikh Hussain & Ors. V/s. Afsha (M.Cr.C.No.9391/2015) decided on 10/8/2016.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as learned

--4--

counsel for the complainant/objector have submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed against the petitioners and it cannot be said that no offence whatsoever is made out against them. The petition hence deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. In the FIR as well as in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, the complainant has levelled specific allegations against all the petitioners. She has stated that all the petitioners ie., her husband, mother-in- law, father-in-law and Jeth have harassed her mentally as well as physically from time to time by making demands of dowry. The allegations are specific against each of the petitioners and it does not appear that any omnibus allegations have been levelled by the complainant. She has attributed specific acts to each of the petitioners individually. She has even given the dates when she was harassed for dowry by each of the petitioners. Thus it cannot be said that vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and that the complainant has tried to falsely implicate them. It is not a case where an effort has been made by the complainant to rope all the family members of her husband. The Supreme Court has expressed concern over misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC and has warned against increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in the matrimonial disputes. However, that does not appear to be the case in the present matter where not only specific allegations have been levelled against the husband but have been so levelled against all the petitioners.

8. The marriage of the complainant took place with petitioner No.1 on 5/10/2021 and as per the complainant harassment of dowry continued from 25/10/2021 up to 24/8/2023 on which date the FIR was lodged. Thus it cannot be said that there has been any inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. In any

--5--

case the complainant has categorically stated that she did not initially lodged the report since she wanted to save her matrimonial life. The same is quite a probable explanation.

9. Though a notice was given by petitioner No.1 to the complainant on 30/5/2023 which was replied to by her on 13/6/2023 in which no details as regards her harassment by making of demand of dowry was made, but a careful perusal of the reply shows that therein it was clearly stated that parties should sit together and talk and that petitioner No.1 should not proceed on any misadventure. It was stated that else the complainant would be forced to institute legal action for the mental and physical cruelty having been suffered by her at the hands of the petitioners and if he does so there would be every possibility of the family been disrupted. It was stated that her harassment falls within the category of a crime and if the conduct of petitioner No.1 does not improve she and her family members would be free to take legal recourse in respect thereto. Thus, though specific averment as regards demand of dowry having been made by the petitioners was not made in the reply but it was stated that the same has not been made since the parties should negotiate with further statement that if petitioner No.1 does not improve his behaviour then legal action as regards mental and physical cruelty having been suffered by the complainant would be taken. It is hence apparent that categoric statement was made by the complainant that she has suffered cruelty at the hands of the petitioners though the same was not detailed and disclosed for the reasons stated for non-making of which no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant.

10. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not help him in any manner. There appears to be prima facie material available on record against the petitioners for proceeding against them and it cannot be said that the allegations as

--6--

levelled against them even if taken to be true at their face value do not amount to any offence against them. The petition is consequently found to be devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-