Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Chadar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50468
1 MCRC-2241-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 1 st OF OCTOBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2241 of 2024
RAJKUMAR CHADAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Poonam Daharwal - Advocate for the appicant.
Ms. Preeti Singh - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Ms. Geeta Sthapak - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ORDER
By filing this petition under 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 applicants seek quashment of First Information Report No. 125/2023
dated 29.4.2023 registered at Police Station Belkheda, District Jabalpur,
consequential charge-sheet and proceedings of R.C.T No. 929/2023 pending
before Additional Judge to 1st Civil Judge, Class II, Patan District Jabalpur.
2. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the present petitioners are
being prosecuted on the basis of an F.I.R lodged by respondent No. 2 with
the Police Station Belkheda, District Jabalpur bearing F.I.R no. 125/2023. It
is contended by the counsel that respondent No. 2 lodged the aforesaid F.I.R
on 29.4.2023 at 8.08 p.m. alleging inter alia that her marriage was
solemnized with applicant No. 1 on 24.4.2021. At the time of marriage, cash
and jewelry were given by the father of the respondent No. 2 towards
dowry. After few days of the marriage the respondent No. 2 was subjected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50468
2 MCRC-2241-2024
to cruelty by the present applicants under the garb of demand of a four
wheeler. It was further alleged that applicant No. 1 left to resume his duties
for Indore. On 20.5.2022, the respondent No. 2 was manhandled by
petitioner No. 1 and she was left at Deendayal Chowk, Jabalpur. Later on
the respondent No.2 went village Kuakheda to reside with her mother and
thereafter the F.I.R. in question was lodged. It is contended by the counsel
for the petitioners that firstly, the F.I.R could not have been lodged on
29.4.2023 itself, as the police was required to first conduct the preliminary
investigation in terms of the judgment of Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs
Govt. of U.P. & Ors (AIR 2014 SC 187). It is further contended by the
counsel for petitioners that allegation of man-handling by petitioner No. 1 on
20.5.2022 is misleading, inasmuch as in an application filed by respondent
No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C, she has mentioned her address of I.T.I
Marhotal, Nai Basti, Deendayal Upadhyay, Jabalpur and as per the said
application the respondent No. 2 is not residing at village Kuakheda and the
averment regarding incident dated 20.5.2022 has also been made in
paragraphs 6 and 12 of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is
contended by the counsel that there is an affidavit also of respondent No. 2
which also contains her address. The counsel while concluding the
arguments submits that in the present case applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are being
prosecuted on the strength of F.I.R. The F.I.R contains general and omnibus
allegations without specifying the individual overt act on the part of
petitioners, therefore, in absence of specific allegations against the
petitioners, the F.I.R and ensued proceedings deserve to be quashed. Heavy
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50468
3 MCRC-2241-2024
reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [(2022) 1 SCR. 558] and also the
decision of Apex Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal
Appeal No. 1457 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015 decided
on 31.8.2023.]
3. Per contra Counsel for State as well as respondent No. 2 have
opposed the prayer and it is contended by them that there are direct
allegations against the present petitioners. The present petitioners treated the
respondent No. 2 with cruelty. She was subjected to mental torture and even
manhandled by the present petitioners also. It is contended by them that
allegations levelled in the F.I.R and also the statement of the witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C require consideration by the trial Court during the course
of trial. At this premature stage no interference is warranted with the
proceedings. It is the further contention of the counsel that the petitioner No.
1 is working as constable in Special Armed Force and his elder brother who
is petitioner No. 2 also used to molest the respondent No. 2 and a report as
regards the said aspect was lodged vide Annexure A/7 also with the Police
Station Mahila Thana, Jabalpur. Hence, it is contended by the counsel that
in view of the serious allegations against the present petitioners, petition
deserves to be dismissed. In support of her contention counsel for
respondent No. 2 has placed reliance of order dated 12th April, 2024 of this
Court in M.Cr.C No. 21128 of 2022 - Ritesh Sahu and others v. State of
M.P. and another.
4. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50468
4 MCRC-2241-2024
5 . Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
6. In the present case respondent No. 2 lodged the F.I.R alleging inter
alia that after the marriage of respondent No. 2 with petitioner No. 1 on
24.4.2021, she was subjected to cruelty under the garb of demand of four
wheeler a Car. In the F.I.R it is further mentioned that the petitioner No. 1 is
posted as trade-man (Constable) in S.A.F Indore and he indulged in a fracas
with respondent No. 2 and thereafter left for Indore. On 20.5.2022, the
petitioner No. 1 manhandled the respondent No. 2 and left her at Deendayal
Chowk, Jabalpur instead of dropping her at her parents' place at village
Kuakheda. The aforesaid F.I.R reveals that so far as the petitioner Nos. 2 and
3 are concerned, there is allegation in one line that when the second time the
respondent No. 2 went to in-laws' house there was demand by all petitioners
regarding a four wheeler in dowry and then they treated the respondent No. 2
with cruelty. A perusal of the aforesaid allegation in one line so far as
petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned the same are omnibus and general. So
far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, there is mention of couple of instances
when respondent No. 2 was subjected to manhandling by petitioner No. 1
and also leaving her at Deendayal Chowk, Jabalpur. In the last part of the
F.I.R there are allegations that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 instigated the
applicant No. 1 to torture the respondent No. 2. Almost identical allegations
are there in the statement of respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C and also the brother of respondent No. 2 Omkar Chadar and other
witness, viz., Bhupat Singh Lodhi and Jham Singh Chadar. There is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50468
5 MCRC-2241-2024
statement of mother of respondent No. 2 also and in all the statements there
are almost identical allegations. Testimony of all the witnesses also clearly
reveal that there are no specific allegation against petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.
The Apex Court while taking note of the implication of relatives of husband
in Kahkashan Kausar (supra) held in paragraphs 16 and 18 as under:
"16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1
SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6).
6. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the
distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and
dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in
on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of
their involvement in the crime are made out.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the
contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general
allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant
alleged that all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her
of terminating her pregnancy . Furthermore, no specific and
distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants
herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific
role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them.
This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the
role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50468
6 MCRC-2241-2024
said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes.
Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against
the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of
allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants
are concerned, the allegations made against them being general
and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
7. The Apex Court in Geeta Malhotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and
Anr. - 2012 (10) SCC 741 and in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of
Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667] have also taken the similar view.
9. Recentlty, the Apex Court in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana &
Anr. (2024 INSC 369) held in paragraph 35 as under:-
"In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in
Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) the legal
principle applicable apropose Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was
examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes
before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are
manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the
High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50468
7 MCRC-2241-2024
It was further observed that it will not be enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients
to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look
into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due
care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines."
10. Thus, in view of aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, it is
evident that there are general and omnibus allegations so far as applicant
Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. The allegations of instigating the applicant No.
1 in the last part of the F.I.R is also vague, as there are no specific details of
date and time on which such instigation was there and respondent No. 2 was
subjected to cruelty at the behest of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.
11. The reliance on the Ritesh Sahu (supra) by respondent No. 2 is
misplaced as the said decision is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as there
were specific allegations against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein and those
specific allegations were considered by this Court in paragraph 7 thereof.
12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present petition
deserves to be partly allowed.
13. Accordingly this petition so far as it relates to applicant No. 1
stands dismissed. The applicant No. 1 shall continue to be prosecuted.
14. The present petition stands allowed so far as same relates to
applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The F.I.R No. 125/2023 dated 29.4.2023 registered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50468
8 MCRC-2241-2024
with Police Station Belkheda, District Jabalpur for the offences under
Sections 498-A, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 and ensued proceedings vide R.C.T No. 929/2023
pending in the Court of Additional Judge to 1st civil Judge, Class-II, Patan
District Jabalpur stand quashed so far as they relate to petitioner Nos. 2 and
3. They are discharged of the aforesaid charges. Bail bonds, if any,
furnished by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 stand discharged.
15. With the aforesaid the present M.Cr.C stands partly allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
VKT
