Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Dubey vs The State Of M.P. on 27 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 MCRC No.51100/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51100 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
AJAY DUBEY S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD DUBEY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
THEKEDAR VILLAGE DOMHAI, SABHAPUR,
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A. USMANI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE
STATION MAIHAR DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. PRABHA DUBEY D/O LATE HETLAL
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O
AMDA MAIHAR, MAIHAR, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K. S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking quashment of FIR No.616/2022 registered at Police Station
Maihar, District Satna for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of
IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. According to the complainant, she was married to the
applicant on 19.05.2015 as per Hindu Rights and Rituals. The applicant
is a builder by profession and is a resident of Mumbai. On the
instructions of the applicant, the complainant was residing in her
matrimonial house along with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and
brother-in-law, On 16.09.2015 she went to Mumbai and stayed there
for about three months and came back on 17.12.2015 to her
matrimonial house for a period of 15 days, whereas the applicant
stayed back in Mumbai. When the complainant insisted that she wants
to go back to Mumbai for residing with her husband, then the applicant
was all the time making excuses of financial difficulty but he never
took her along with him to Mumbai. In spite of repeated requests, the
mother-in-law and father-in-law of the applicant did not allow the
complainant to go back to Mumbai to reside with her husband.
3. On continuous insistence by the complainant, the applicant
used to come back to his house for few days in a year or
after 7 to 8 months but during his stay in the matrimonial house, he
used to abuse her, assault her and was avoiding to perform his marital
responsibilities. All the jewelry, which was received by the
complainant from her matrimonial house and parental house at the time
of marriage were taken back by the applicant and the cost of said
jewelry was approximately Rs.5,00,000/-. Whenever, the complainant
insisted that she wants to reside with her husband, then the father-in-
law, mother-in-law as well as the applicant used to abuse and used to
pass taunts that the parents of the complainant have not given the
dowry as per the status of their family and therefore, the applicant
cannot not take her back to Mumbai. Even abusive language was being
used. The younger brother-in-law of the complainant also used the
word of Panauti and other filthy languages and used to insult her and
was all the time saying that it is better for her to die and the
development of the house has stopped after she has come to their
house. When, the complainant used to inform her husband, then he was
all the time justifying his brother. On the contrary, he used to abuse
her filthily and used to insult her. The applicant was all the time
informing that he is residing with the bachelor boys in a financial
crises and therefore the complainant must stay back in her matrimonial
house to look after his parents. He also insisted that in case if the
complainant is so eager to come to Mumbai, then she must bring
money from her brothers. Even her bothers used to give money so that
that the atrocities to the complainant may be avoided. The Husband
(applicant) or her mother-in-law and brother-in-law were not providing
financial help to bear the day to day expenses and they always used to
say that it is not their duty to look after her.
4. Thus, it was claimed that somehow with the financial
assistance by the parents, she was surviving. The applicant and her
father-in-law and mother-in-law also used to threat her that in case if
anything is narrated by her to anybody, then she and her brother will be
killed. Somehow, she was maintaining the dignity of the family and
was living in a precarious condition with a hope and belief that with
passage of time, the things would improve. On 07.06.2022, one
unknown lady called her from Mumbai from Mobile No.9920931617
and informed that the applicant is her husband and he is having 4 to 5
years old son and thereafter, she disconnected the phone and blocked
the mobile number of the complainant. Thus, it was alleged that the
applicant has cheated her. As a result, she suffered mental shock as
well as heart attack. As a result, she remained in unconscious condition
for 4 to 5 hours. She was admitted in Birla Hospital by her brothers
where her treatment took place in ICU. During her treatment, her in-
laws did not take care of her. Thereafter, she has been turned out of her
matrimonial house with clear instruction that she should not come
back.
5. Challenging the FIR lodged by the complainant, it is
submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged by
way of counter blast because applicant has filed a petition for divorce
on 20.05.2022 and only after coming to know about the filing of the
divorce petition, the FIR has been lodged. Thus, it is alleged that the
FIR is bad on account of fact that it has been lodged by way of counter
blast.
6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
7. The only stand taken by the petitioner is that FIR has been
lodged after the filing of divorce petition.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari
Devi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held that the FIR cannot be
quashed only on the ground that it was lodged after the divorce petition
was filed. On the contrary, that shows that the lady tried her level best
to save her married life and only when she realized that there is no
possibility of improvement, then she lodged the FIR. Furthermore, the
judgment passed in the Civil Court is not binding on the criminal Court
and the filing of the divorce cannot be a ground to quash the FIR.
9. So far as the allegations made in the FIR are concerned, it is
well established principle of law that if uncontroverted allegations do
not make out an offence, only then Court can quash the proceedings.
The FIR which has been lodged by the respondent No.2 clearly speaks
about the atrocities committed by the applicant for demand of dowry as
well as otherwise also. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that
even if the uncontroverted allegations are accepted, still no offence
would be made out. Furthermore, this Court while exercising power of
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has a limited scope of interference and
this Court cannot consider the reliability, credibility and correctness of
the allegations made in the FIR.
10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out
warranting interference.
11. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
VB*
VINAY KUMAR BURMAN
2024.03.04 11:07:19 +05'30'
