Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pushpendra Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C. No.7418/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7418 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. PUSHPENDRA GUPTA S/O MR. RAMESH CHANDRA
GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
NOTHING R/O HOUSE NO. E-18, NEW MINAL
RESIDENCY, JK ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. MANORAMA GUPTA W/O SHRI RAMESH
CHANDRA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O H.NO. E 18 NEW
MINAL RESIDENCY, J.K. ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA S/O LATE SHANKAR
LAL, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O H.NO. E 18 NEW
MINAL RESIDENCY, J.K. ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRAMUKH SACHIV GRAH MANTRALAYA DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH MAHILA THANA
INCHARGE BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
............................................................................................................................................
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking quashment of FIR No.139/2023 registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, Bhopal City for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506,
34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that in fact FIR has been
lodged by way of counter blast because applicant No.1 has filed a
petition for divorce on 26.04.2023, whereas FIR was lodged on
29.04.2023. It is further submitted that allegations made in the FIR are
false.
3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicants.
4. So far as the lodging of FIR by way of counter blast to the divorce
petition is concerned, the question is no more res integra.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari
Devi and Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC369 has held as under:
"14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived
at by the High Court while quashing the FIR, it
is apparent that the High Court had relied on
extraneous considerations and acted beyond the
allegations made in the FIR for quashing the
same in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code. We have already noted
the illustrations enumerated in Bhajan Lal
case [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] and from a careful reading of these
illustrations, we are of the view that the
allegations emerging from the FIR are not
covered by any of the illustrations as noted
hereinabove. For example, we may take up one
of the findings of the High Court as noted
hereinabove. The High Court has drawn an
adverse inference on account of the FIR being
lodged on 31-12-2001 while the appellant was
forced out of the matrimonial home on 25-5-
2001.
15. In our view, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the High Court was not justified in
drawing an adverse inference against the
appellant wife for lodging the FIR on 31-12-
2001 on the ground that she had left the
matrimonial home at least six months before
that. This is because, in our view, the High
Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant
and her family members were, during this
period, making all possible efforts to enter into a
settlement so that Respondent 2 husband would
take her back to the matrimonial home. If any
complaint was made during this period, there
was every possibility of not entering into any
settlement with Respondent 2 husband.
16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was
filed only when all efforts to return to the
matrimonial home had failed and Respondent 2
husband had filed a divorce petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
That apart, in our view, filing of a divorce
petition in a civil court cannot be a ground to
quash criminal proceedings under Section 482
of the Code as it is well settled that criminal and
civil proceedings are separate and independent
and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot
bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if
they arise out of the same set of facts. Such
being the position, we are, therefore, of the view
that the High Court while exercising its powers
under Section 482 of the Code has gone beyond
the allegations made in the FIR and has acted in
excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High
Court was not justified in quashing the FIR by
going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or
by relying on extraneous considerations.
22. For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined to
interfere with the order of the High Court and
hold that the High Court in quashing the FIR in
the exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code by relying on the investigation
report and the findings made therein has acted
beyond its jurisdiction. For the purpose of
finding out the commission of a cognizable
offence, the High Court was only required to
look into the allegations made in the complaint
or the FIR and to conclude whether a prima
facie offence had been made out by the
complainant in the FIR or the complaint or not."
6. After arguing the matter at length and in the light of judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha (Supra), counsel
for applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
application.
7. It is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
SR*
