Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman Chouhan vs State Of M.P. on 7 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:277
1 MCRC-20208-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20208 of 2024
AMAN CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhijeet Singh Chouhan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Apoorv Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Aditya Raj Singh Solanki, Advocate for the respondent
No.2/complainant.
_______________________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 25.11.2024
Pronounced on : 07.01.2025
_______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This miscellaneous criminal case having been heard and reserved for
orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
pronounced the following:
This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed
for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.879/2023 dated 16.10.2023
registered at PS Barwani, District Barwanihajapur for offence punishable
under Sections 376(1), 376(3), 376(2)(n), 294, 323, 506, 498A of IPC and
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and consequential criminal proceedings at SC No.114/2023
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:277
2 MCRC-20208-2024
pending before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge and Special
Judge(POCSO Act), Barwani, District Barwani.
2. The exposition of the facts giving rise to the present petition is as
under :-
The prosecutrix/complainant aged around 23 years reported to SHO of
Police Station, Barwani on 16.10.2023 that she got friendly with Aman
Chouhan in the year 2013, when she was studying in Class-IXth. In
September 2013, Aman enticed her and took her to the house of his friend.
Aman proposed to marry her when she attains age of 18 years and on the
promise of marriage Aman forcefully sexually assaulted her. Thereafter, on
multiple occasions, Aman had sexual relations with her. In the year 2019, she
was studying at Sirpur and Indore, Aman had physical relations with her
against her will on the pretext of marriage. In the year 2021, she got pregnant.
Aman compelled her for abortion. Her family was not ready to marry her with
Aman, but family members of Aman were ready for the marriage. Her
marriage with Aman was performed at Arya Samaj, Mhow on 15.06.2023.
After few days of marriage, her husband Aman Chouhan (petitioner no.1),
father-in-law Ravi @ Ravindra Singh Chouhan (petitioner no.2) and mother-
in-law Laxmi Chouhan (petitioner no.3) started torturing her with regard to
inadequate dowry. She was asked to bring Rs.5 Lacs and a Car from her
father. The accused were harassing her mentally and physically for demand of
dowry. Aman used to manhandle and abuse her in filthy language. They
threatened to kill her if she does not fulfill the demands. She informed her
father and maternal aunt. Her father got her rented room near Sawariya at
Badwani. Aman came to reside with her, but after some time left her and
stopped communication with her. Aman had sexually exploited her during her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:277
3 MCRC-20208-2024
minority. Her husband Aman, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law had
physically and mentally harassed her for demand of dowry. On such
allegations, PS Badwani, District Badwani registered FIR at Crime
No.879/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(3), 376(2)
(n), 294, 323, 506, 498A of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of POCSO Act and
Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Aman Chouhan, Ravi
@ Ravindra Singh Chouhan and Laxmi Chouhan. The statements of
prosecutrix were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. On
completion of investigation, final report was submitted. The trial is pending at
SC. No.114/2023 before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Badwani.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial is presently at
the stage of defense evidence.
4. The FIR and criminal proceedings are assailed in the present petition
on the following grounds :-
(1) False allegations are levelled against the petitioners. The prosecutrix as well
as the accused, was minor at the time of allegations with regard to sexual
assault. The prosecutrix married Aman at her own will in the year 2021. The
prosecutrix was major, therefore, the allegations of abortion against petitioner
Aman Chouhan are false and baseless.
(2) The prosecutrix was expelled by her father from parental home. The
petitioners no.2 and 3 got her married with their son. The prosecutrix and the
petitioner Aman had performed love marriage. The general and omnibus
allegations are made against the petitioners regarding demand of dowry and
harassment. No offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners.
5. On these grounds, it is requested that FIR registered at Crime
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:277
4 MCRC-20208-2024
No.879/2023 and consequential criminal proceedings at SC. No.114/2023
deserves to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, requested not to
prosecute this petition qua petitioner no.1 Aman Chouhan, however, learned
counsel submitted that petitioner Ravi @ Ravindra Singh Chouhan and Laxmi
are charged with offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC only.
General and omnibus allegations regarding harassment and demand of dowry
are made against the petitioners Ravi @ Ravindra Singh Chouhan and Laxmi
Chouhan. No offence, as alleged, is made out on the basis of general and
omnibus allegations, therefore, FIR and consequential proceedings deserves
to be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State ably assisted by the learned
counsel for the complainant/objector contended that the complainant in the
FIR and her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. has
made specific allegations of harassment with regard to demand of dowry
against both the petitioners. He further submitted that the charges in the
matter were framed on 29.10.2023 and the petition is filed belatedly on
10.05.2024. The proceedings cannot be quashed at belated stage of defense
evidence.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State(NCT of Delhi) &
Another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 614 contends that the quashment of
proceedings can be considered at any stage of the trial provided the material
on record does not disclose the commission of offence alleged against the
accused.
9. Heard both the parties and perused the record as well as the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:277
5 MCRC-20208-2024
diary.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra (Supra) has held as
under :-
14. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold
or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court
on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the
FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not
disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the
accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal
proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A
prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to
interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will
amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core
basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal
proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High
Court. The power, though available, being extra ordinary in
nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending
facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated
above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled
by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so
warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only
at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively
advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge
against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceeding
after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as,
at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried
out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked
into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of
the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such
materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner,
disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the
accused.
11. However, the Supreme Court in Para-17 of same judgment laid down
the principles governing the contours of the inherent power as under :-
17. While dealing with contours of the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding, another
decision of this court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy alias Ramu
vs. Kovvuri Satyanaryana Reddy and others reported in (2011)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:277
6 MCRC-20208-2024
12 SCC 437 to which one of us (Justice P.Sathasivam) was a
party may be usefully noticed. In the said decision after an
exhaustive consideration of the principles governing the
exercise of the said power as laid down in several earlier
decisions this court held that:
31. . . . . When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark
upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable
or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation
would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial
Judge. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482
and the categories of cases where the High Court may
exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to
prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice were set out in detail in Bhajan Lal[4].
The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482
are very wide and at the same time the power requires great
caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that
its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to
stifle a legitimate prosecution."
12. The complainant has made specific allegations against her mother-in-
law Laxmi Chouhan and father-in-law Ravi @ Ravindra Singh
Chouhan(petitioners) regarding demand of dowry and her mental and physical
harassment amounting to cruelty. As per allegations, the complainant was
compelled to leave her matrimonial home and stayed at the rented premises
near Sawariya Mandir at Barwani due to constant harassment by the
petitioners. Thus, the allegations cannot be said to be general, omnibus,
absurd or inherently improbable. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses
have been recorded and the trial is at the belated stage of defense evidence,
therefore, this Court is not expected to embark upon enquiry whether the
evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable or not. The trial Court would appreciate
the evidence and consider the veracity of accusation on merits of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:277
7 MCRC-20208-2024
evidence. In view of above discussion, stifling the proceedings before the trial
Court, at the belated stage of trial, would itself be an abuse of process of law,
therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for
quashment of the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings pending before
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge(POCSO Act),
Barwani at Special Case No.114/2023.
13. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
pn
