Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pinki @ Afrooz vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11853 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. PINKI @ AFROOZ W/O SHADAB KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O
76/B, SALIMAAR COLONY, KHAJRANA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. AFSHA KHAN W/O IMRAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 28
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O 39/1,
MOTI TABELA, GALI NO. 1, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SAYYED JAFAR ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION, MAHILA THANA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. FARHANA W/O ARSHAD QURESHI, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, R/O 38, JOSHI MOHALLA. CHATRIPURA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.
BY SHRI KAMAL KISHORE KAUSHAL- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C by the
petitioners/accused for quashment of FIR 247/2021 registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Indore for offences punishable under Section 498-A,
323, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the
subsequent proceedings thereto including that of the trial Court.
2. As per the prosecution, a report was lodged on 17.12.2021 by the
complainant to the effect that she had been married to co-accused Arshad
Qureshi on 15.12.2020. After two months of marriage her husband, mother-in-
law, father-in-law, Nanad Pinki and Afsha started harassing her by making
demand of dowry. They demand a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs from her and also beat
her and abused her. When she conceived, the accused told her that they do not
want the child. On 30.10.2021 the accused again demanded a sum of Rs.5
Lakhs from her which she told to her parents who also tried to persuade the
accused but they turned her out of the house. Thereafter, the report was lodged
by the complainant on the basis of which the petitioners have also been
implicated for the present offence.
3. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners on the ground that
the allegations as levelled by the complainant against them are totally forged and
false. The petitioners have never demanded any amount from the complainant
nor have harassed on that count. They have been roped in solely for the
purpose of implicating all family members of the husband of the complainant.
The petitioners are married and are residing with their husbands in their
matrimonial house and are not involved in the married life of the complainant.
No complaint was made by the complainant against the petitioners at any prior
point of time. Earlier a compromise had taken place between the complainant
and her husband that they would live peacefully thereafter hence there was no
possibility of petitioners interfering in their life.The proceedings initiated against
them are abuse of process of law and deserve to be quashed. Reliance has been
placed on decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 2017 SC 3869 and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2012)
10 SCC 741.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioners and have perused the record.
5. In her complaint as well as in her statement recorded under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C. the complainant has levelled specific allegations against the
petitioners as regards raising of demand of dowry by them in sum of Rs.5
Lakhs along with the other co-accused and beating her on that count and
abusing her. It thus cannot be said that no specific allegations have been levelled
by complainant against the petitioners. On the contrary, it is seen that it has
been categorically stated that the petitioners had demanded dowry from her and
had beatan her and had also abused her. Particular date of 30.10.2021 has also
been given by the complainant as to when the demand of dowry was made by
the petitioners from her which she told to her parents and was thereafter turned
out of the matrimonial house. Thus, it cannot be said that the implication of the
petitioners is solely for the purpose of roping in all family members of husband.
6. Though it is contended by the petitioners that earlier a compromise
had taken place between husband of complainant and her but from a perusal of
those proceedings the petitioners are not benefited in any manner. Those were
proceedings as regards matrimonial dispute between complainant and her
husband. In her statement the complainant had specifically stated that two of
her Nanad i.e. petitioners one of which is Pinki lives in her matrimonial house
and always tries to turn her husband against her and ensures fight between them.
The said statement of the complainant instead of assisting the petitioners goes
against them and it cannot be said that in earlier proceedings instituted between
the complainant and her husband no allegation was levelled by the complainant
against the petitioners.
7. Thus in view of the categoric allegations levelled by the complainant
against the petitioners as regards raising of demand of dowry by them and
abusing her and beating her, it cannot be said that there is no material
whatsoever available on record to proceed with against the petitioners. On the
contrary, there does appear to be sufficient material for proceedings against
them. In such circumstances the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners do no help him in any manner.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this petition,
which is accordingly dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
