Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13299 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2024

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                                 1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT INDORE
                             BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                     ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2024
             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52304 of 2022

     BETWEEN:-
     SHAURABH KUMAR TRIPATHI S/O SHRI
     VIVEKANAND TIWARI (TRIPATHI), AGED
     ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O - HOUSE NO. 1154 KHASRA
     NO. 252 GROUND FLOOR, STREET NO. 10,
     SUSHANT VIHAR, IBRAHIMPUR NORTH WEST
     DELHI (DELHI)
                                                    .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI PRABAL JAIN -ADVOCATE)


     AND
   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
1. DEWAS MAHILA POLICE STATION, DEWAS
   (MADHYA PRADESH)

     VIDHI RAWAL W/O PRATEEK TRIPATHI, AGED
2.
     ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O - LIG 62, CIVIL LINES,
     THANA KOTWALI, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....RESPONDENT
     (MS. NISHA TANWAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR
     RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
     (SHRI AVIRAL VIKAS KHARE - ADVOCATE FOR
     RESPONDENT NO.2)

              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3376 of 2023

     BETWEEN:-
1. PRATEEK TRIPATHI S/O SHRI VIVEKANAND
     TIWARI (TRIPATHI), AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                                             2


2. VIVEKANAND TIWARI S/O SHRI SHIVDHAN
   TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

3. MITRA TIWARI W/O SHRI VIVEKANAND
   TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

     ALL R/O HOUSE NO. 287, LIG AWAS VIKAS
     COLONY,   JHUSI,   PRAYAGRAJ,   JHUSI,
     ALLAHABAD (UTTAR PRADESH)
                                                                  .....PETITIONERS
     (BY SHRI PRABAL JAIN -ADVOCATE)


     AND
   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
1. DEWAS MAHILA POLICE STATION, DEWAS
   (MADHYA PRADESH)

     VIDHI RAWAL W/O PRATEEK TRIPATHI, AGED
2.
     ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O - LIG 62, CIVIL LINES,
     THANA KOTWALI, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                  .....RESPONDENT
     (MS. NISHA TANWAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR
     RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
     (SHRI AVIRAL VIKAS KHARE - ADVOCATE FOR
     RESPONDENT NO.2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     These applications coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
                               ORDER

This order shall govern the disposal of MCRC No.52304/2022 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) and MCRC No.3376/2023 (Prateek Tripathi and others Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) as both these petitions arise out of the same crime number.

2. The petitioners have preferred the present petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR dated 7.1.2022 bearing Crime No.3/2022 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Dewas for the offences

under Section 498-A, 504, 506 r/w S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short "DP Act").

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Prateek Tripathi was married with the respondent No.2 Vidhi Rawal on 12.12.2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Dewas. Out of their wedlock no child has been born. On 7.1.2022 respondent No.2 lodged an FIR at P.S. Mahila Thana, Dewas by stating that Vivekanand Tiwari and Shaurabh Tiwari are her father-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively and Mira Tiwari is her mother-in-law. After few days of her marriage she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by her husband on account of non fulfilment of his demand of dowry. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law tortured her by taunting regarding the demand of dowry. Then she went to Johannesburg (South Africa) for doing her job. When she returned, then accused persons again tortured her for demand of dowry of Rs.20 Lakh cash and SUV top model car. Accordingly offence has been registered against the petitioners. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the FIR has been registered against the petitioners on the basis of false and baseless complaint made by respondent No.2. Their representation dated 23.2.2022 was not considered by the investigating officer and carried out the ill-motivated and unfair investigation against them. FIR is false, fabricated, omnibus and baseless and no case is made out against the

petitioners. Inquiry officer did not conduct proper enquiry before registering the FIR. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashment of the FIR and all the consequential proceedings including the proceedings of the pending trial against them before the Court of JMFC, Dewas and issue appropriate directions to the respondent No.1 to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent No.2 under Section 182 & 211 of IPC. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [(2012) 13 SCC 614], in the case of Almuddin Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2016 SCC OnLine MP 8732] and in the case of Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs. Prachi [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1607].

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that prima facie sufficient evidence is available on record.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that there is ample evidence available on record against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty in respect of demand of dowry. Prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Charges have been framed against the petitioners, which has not been challenged by the petitioners, hence this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774.

7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it appears that marriage of the respondent No.2 was solemnized with the petitioner Prateek Tripathi on 12.12.2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Dewas, but later on respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner Prateek Tripathi and vide judgment and decree dated 11.1.2024 in RCSHM Case No.66/2022 ex parte divorce decree has been passed in favour of the respondent No.2 and marriage of respondent No.2 and the petitioner Prateek Tripathi has been dissolved and now they are living separately.

9. So far as the first objection regarding the maintainability of this petition raised by the respondent No.2 is concerned, although the trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners and the order of framing of charge was not challenged by the petitioners by filing any criminal revision, but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others reported in (1983) 1 SCC 1 has held that:-

"the scope, ambit and range of Section 482 is quite different from the powers conferred under Section 397(2) and there is no inconsistency between the two power under Section 482 is not merely a revisional power meant to be exercised against the orders passed by subordinate Courts. Section 482 confers a separate and independent power on the High Court alone to pass

order ex debito justitiae in case where grave and substantial injustice has been done or where the process of the court has been seriously abused. The inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly."

10. On the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the order of framing of charge was not challenged by the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., even this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which are the extraordinary jurisdiction and residuary powers. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent No.2 is not acceptable.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they have served notice under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, then they have filed so many documents to prove their defence, but their representation dated 23.2.2022 was not considered by the investigating officer and unfair investigation has been done by the respondent No.1. Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings as well as the consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. But it is noteworthy that the aforesaid documents filed by the petitioners can be considered at the time of their defence. The investigating officer is duty bound to conduct preliminary enquiry before registration of the FIR, but at the stage of investigation, he is not supposed to decide the matter on the grounds of defence raised by the accused persons, therefore, the

same cannot became ground for quashment of the FIR and all other consequential proceedings.

12. On perusal of the averment made in the FIR and all other prima facie evidence available in the case diary, it is clear that named FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and their active participation in the offence has been duly mentioned. FIR is well supported by the statement of the respondent No.2/complainant as well as her parents. On perusal of the contents of FIR, it is apparent that the specific overt acts are alleged against the petitioners.

13. It is settled preposition of law that powers under Section 482 of 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. In Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others 2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that when a prayer for quashment of the F.I.R is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the F.I.R disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the mertis of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the F.I.R.

14. In the case of Ramesh Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & ors. 2020 SCC OnLine MP 887, the Division Bench of this Court has

examined the matter in detail and placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander- (2012)9 SCC 460 has held as under:

"10. As per the provision of law which flows from the judgment in Amit Kapoor (supra), it is clear that at the stage, at which the present case is, the court should not examine the facts, evidence and material on record to determine whether there is sufficient material, which may end in a conviction. The court is only concerned with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence. Similarly, under section 482 Cr.P.C the court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for arriving to a conclusion that no offence was disclosed or there was possibility of his acquittal. Whether mens rea behind the PC Act of forgery is present or not cannot be decided at this early stage and is best to be left to be adjudicated by the Trial Court after marshalling of evidence."

15. In the instant case, it is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated on the basis of the complaint made by the respondent No.2. It is pertinent to mention that the FIR has been lodged within two years of the marriage and no newly married wife would like to ruin her matrimonial home until and unless she is harassed and subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the allegations made against the petitioners are false and baseless. The defence cannot be looked into by this Court at the initial stage. It is also settled position of law that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR.

16. Therefore, in view of the prima facie evidence available on record, at this stage aforesaid proceedings cannot be quashed. In the aforesaid backdrop and foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case there is sufficient prima facie evidence available on record to prosecute the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and no case is made out for quashment of the FIR and all other consequential proceedings.

18. Accordingly, both these petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed.

19. Signed order be kept in the file of MCRC No.52304/2022 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of connected MCRC No.3376/2023.

C.C. as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Trilok/-

TRILOK SINGH SAVNER 2024.05.14 19:06:10 +05'30'