Mohan Alias Deepak Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12272 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohan Alias Deepak Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

                                                      1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                              ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26742 of 2018

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    MOHAN ALIAS DEEPAK PATEL S/O MR.
                                RAMDEEN PATEL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: DAIRY WORK VILLAGE TEWAR
                                BHERAGHAT ROAD P.S. BHERAGHAR TEHSIL
                                AND DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    RAM DEEN PATEL S/O LATE MR. MITHAIE LAL
                                PATEL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                DAIRY WORK VILLAGE TEWAR BHERAGHAT
                                ROAD P.S. BHERAGHAR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
                                JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SMT. CHUNTAL ALIAS CHOUNTO BAI W/O MR.
                                RAMDEEN PATEL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                                OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE TEWAR
                                BHERAGHAT ROAD P.S. BHERAGHAR TEHSIL
                                AND DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    RAVI KUMAR PATEL S/O MR. RAMDEEN PATEL,
                                AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, VILLAGE TEWAR
                                BHERAGHAT ROAD P.S. BHERAGHAR TEHSIL
                                AND DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....APPLICANTS
                          (BY SHRI ABHAY GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                                SUATALA, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    SMT. RAJANI PATEL D/O CHOORAMAN PATEL,
                                AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE MIDLI POLICE
                                CHOWKI BARMAN P.S SUATALA TEHSIL KARELI,
                                DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 5/24/2024
5:44:01 PM
                                                       2
                          (SHRI SOURABH SHUKLA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE                              FOR
                          RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI J.P. SINGROL - ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No.194 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 34 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station Barman, P.S. Suatala, Tehsil Kareli, District Narsinghpur as well as the charge- sheet filed before the concerned trial court.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that marriage of the complainant/respondent no.2 with the petitioner no.1 was solemnized on 16.01.2017. After the marriage, the petitioners started harassing the complainant and raised a demand of Rs.6.00 Lakhs. On 25.06.2018, a report was lodged by the complainant/respondent no.2 against the petitioners. The police authorities in a harried manner conducted investigation within a period of four days and filed a charge-sheet before the competent court. The petitioner No.1 sent a legal notice to the complainant on 12.06.2018 and in a counter blast she lodged a report to the police authorities.

3. This petition has been filed on the ground that in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution witnesses have not mentioned as and when and where demand of dowry was made by the petitioners from the complainant. There is no specific allegation against other family members. Omnibus allegations have been made against all the family members. There is no mentioning of the fact that how she has been tortured by the petitioners. It is only mentioned that they have committed

marpeet with the complainant. It is argued that there may be small altercation between the husband and wife, but every assault or harassment does not amount to cruelty as per the settled proposition of law as has been considered in the case of Shailendra Singh vs. State of M.P. , reported in 2005(2) MPLJ

224. The complainant herself has refused to get her medically examined despite of the fact that specific allegations were made by her regarding beating. The FIR does not make out a case under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Except the interested witnesses, no other independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution case. The police authorities have not even taken statements of the neighbours and have completed the entire investigation within a short period of four days. This court has taken note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter and had directed the Investigating Officer to submit an explanation to the aforesaid effect vide order dated 08.02.2024.

4. It is argued that if the entire verdict of the FIR and the prosecution case is taken as it is, then no case is made out against the petitioners. At the most, the allegations could have been levied against the husband regarding beating and raising demand of dowry, but as far as other family members are concerned, they do not have any role to play in the incident. Merely stating that there is a demand of dowry, harassment and beating has been done, is not sufficient for registration of an FIR for the aforesaid offences. Something more is required in

the matter. There is nothing on record to show that there was any prior incident which was reported to the police authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases has considered the aspect of involvement of the entire family in forged and frivolous prosecution, therefore, vide constitutional Bench judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in

(2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed for issuance of

notice under Section 41-A of the Code of the Criminal Procedure to do complete justice in the matter and to bring out the truth in the matter. Directing sending them to jail, would cause unnecessary harassment to the family members without even knowing the truth. Therefore, it is argued that the case clearly falls the exceptions which have been carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl. SCC 335. Therefore, the interference is sought for by this court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the complainant/respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order. It is argued that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the incident. Only a prima facie case is required to be shown to the police authority to enable them to carry out investigation. In the present case, specific allegations are being reflected from the FIR regarding demand of dowry and harassment being caused. Initially there was a demand of Rs.7.00 Lakhs and thereafter on 10.06. 2018 there was a demand of Rs.6.00 Lakhs and allegations of abusement and beating the complainant was made, which is reflected from the verbatim of the FIR. The statements of the witnesses which have been recorded during investigation support the case of the prosecution. Merely the fact that the wife has not got herself medically examined cannot be the sole ground to quash the entire prosecution case. The grounds which have been taken by the petitioners are virtually the matter of evidence. The same cannot be interfered or quashed in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the the parties and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of the FIR, it is seen that there are specific allegations

made by the complainant against the husband and other family members i.e. the petitioners. The police authorities have conducted the investigation within a period of four days and in pursuance to the order passed by this court seeking explanation from the Investigating Officer regarding completion of investigation in a hurried manner, the same has been placed on record. After going through the explanation submitted by the Investigating Officer, this court is satisfied with the manner in which the investigation has been carried out. The police authorities have conducted the entire investigation within a short period of four days and thereafter filed a charge-sheet before the trial court. There is sufficient material available on record to draw an apprehension that such an incident has taken place. Prima facie material is available on record which is reflected from the charge-sheet.

8. The law with respect to interference in criminal cases seeking quashment of the FIR and criminal proceedings have been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) and recently in the case of Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online 315 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted "during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or ''no coercive steps to be adopted'' during the investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:-

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter

XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.

Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an

onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or ''no coercive steps to be adopted and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or ''no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order;

xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of no

coercive steps to be adopted within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by ''no coercive steps to be adopted as the term ''no coercive steps to be adopted can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

9. As there are specific allegations against the husband and the family members, which can be seen from the FIR, Final report as well as from the statements of the witnesses which have been recorded during investigation, no case is made out for quashment of an FIR. The court, while entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to be cautious to see that whether any case is made out or not. In the present case, the complainant is disclosing the commission of the offence. As it is a named FIR giving the detailed particulars and the manner in which the offence has been committed and as it is clearly spelt out a prima facie, no interference is called for quashing of the FIR and other criminal proceedings.

10. The petition sa n s merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj