Madhya Pradesh High Court
Faruk Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31405 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. FARUK KHAN S/O MISTER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 37
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: LABOR STREET NO. 6
GEETANAGAR BHANPUR P.S. CHHOLA MANDIR
BARASIYA ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RUKSANA BEE W/O MISTER KHAN, AGED ABOUT
56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOME MAKER R/O
STREET NO.6, GEETANAGAR BHANPUR, POLICE
STATION CHHOLA MANDIR BARASIYA ROAD
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MISTER KHAN S/O SAMSUDDEN, AGED ABOUT 67
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O STREET NO.6,
GEETANAGAR BHANPUR, POLICE STATION
CHHOLA MANDIR BARASIYA ROAD BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SABANA BEE W/O KAMAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O STREET NO.6,
GEETANAGAR BHANPUR, POLICE STATION
CHHOLA MANDIR BARASIYA ROAD BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOURASIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
HOUSE OFFICER P.S. BARASIYA BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. FARHEEN B. W/O FARUK KHAN
OCCUPATION: HOME MAKER STREET NO. 6
GEETANAGAR BANPUR POLICE STATION
CHHOLA MANDIR BARASIYA ROAD BHOPAL AT
PRESENT RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE LATEEFPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 5/15/2024
10:48:54 AM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMAN PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER AND SHRI BRAJENDRA
SINGH KUSHRAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.761/2021 registered at Police Station
Barasiya District Bhopal for the offence under Sections 498-A, 34, 323 of IPC
and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Dowry Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the prosecutrix
lodged an FIR levelling allegations that her marriage with applicant No.1 was
solemnized on 20/05/2009 and at the time of marriage, various household items
were given by her parents as a dowry along with jewellery and Hero Honda
Motorcycle. Later on, husband of the prosecutrix started making demand of
Rs.20,00,000/- as well as Bolero Vehicle. The husband was also pressurizing
respondent No.2 to get his name mutated on the property which was owned by
the father of respondent No.2. On 14/11/2021, at the instigation by applicant
No.2 and 4, respondent No.2 was manhandled by her husband as well as father-
in-law under the garb of demand of dowry.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that an FIR so lodged
by respondent No.2 is unsustainable which is evident from perusal of complaint
which was lodged by applicant No.1 on 07/12/2021 (Annexure P/3) . It is
contended by the counsel that the said complaint reflects that respondent No.2
and her family members were interfering with the relation-ship of the applicant
No.1 with his relatives. The applicants were being harassed and humiliated by
respondent No.2 and her family members. It is contended by the counsel that
there is an affidavit (Annexure P/4) which reflects that there are no dispute
between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 but her family members have
been instrumental in driving a wedge between applicant No.1 and respondent
no.2. Therefore, the FIR so lodged by the respondent No.2, deserves to be
quashed.
4. Per contra, it is contended by the counsel for the respondent No.2
as well as the State that the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed
by the applicants deserves to be dismissed. It is contended that the
memorandum of petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C does not specify the
specific ground on which the quashing of FIR and ensued proceedings is being
sought. It is also contended by the counsel that specific allegations have been
levelled against the applicants in the FIR and the allegations so levelled in the
FIR as well as the statements are still to be tested during the course of evidence
and at this premature stage, no interference is warranted in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. To support his contention, learned
counsel placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram
Baran Vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.4708/2014.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. A perusal of the record reflects that in the FIR there are
allegations against the applicant No.1 as regards demand of dowry of
Rs.20,00,000/- and a Bolero Vehicle. The further allegation is that on
14/11/2021, at the instigation by applicant Nos.2 & 4, respondent No.2 was
subjected to beating by applicant No.1 (husband) and applicant No.3 (father-in-
law) of respondent No.2. Apart from the incident dated 14/11/2021 in the entire
FIR, there is no mention of any overt act at the behest of applicant Nos.2 and 4.
The statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C further reveal that against
the applicant No.2 & 4 there are no specific allegation expect the bald allegation
that at their instigation, on 14/11/2021, respondent No.2 was manhandled by
applicant Nos.1 and 3. The entire FIR as well as statements recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C reveal that there are no allegations of demand of dowry
or cruelty at the behest of applicant No.2 (mother-in-law) & applicant
No.4(sister-in-law).
8. Thus, the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of
Kahakashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others
{(2022) 6SCC 599}, reflects that there is a trend to implicate the family
members of the husband at the behest of the wife and while levelling the
omnibus and general allegations, the matters are reported to the police and thus,
taking note of this alarming situation on number of occasions, the Apex Court
has dealt with the issue prior to judgment in Kahakashan Kausar (supra) also.
The Apex Court in the case of Geeta Malhotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
and Anr. reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741, and also in the case of Preeti
Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. has considered the
aforesaid aspect.
9. In view of aforesaid analysis, so far as applicant Nos. 1 to 3 are
concerned, as there are specific allegations against them in F.I.R, therefore, this
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C in relation to applicant Nos. 1 to 3 stands
dismissed.
10. So far as applicant Nos.2 and No. 4 are concerned, the present
petition stands allowed. The proceedings so initiated against petitioner Nos. 2
and 4 on the strength of the First Information Report filed vide Crime
No.761/2021 stands quashed. Applicant Nos. 2 and 4 are discharged of the
charges. Bail bonds, if any, in respect of applicant Nos. 2 and 4 are also
discharged.
11. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C stands
partly allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
