Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.K. Palo, J.
Badam Singh and another —Petitioners
versus
State of M.P. and Another —Respondents
M. Cr.C. No. 3290 of 2014
Decided on 17.11.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Shri Ankur Mody, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1/State: Shri B.P.S. Chauhan, Panel Lawyer.
For the Respondent No.2:Shri Anant Bansal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appreciation of the evidence in a summary manner is not permissible at the stage of quashing the proceedings. The facts stated in the FIR and in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC will have to be accepted as they appear on the face of it.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Petition for quashing FIR registered under Sections 498A, 506, 294, 323/34 IPC—Petitioners were sister –in-law (Nand) and brother-in-law (Nandoi) of complainant and were resdent of village for away from matrimonial home of complainant—Complainant had not named them in her maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC as persons involved in causing harassment to her and that petitioner sister-in-law was only 6 years old when complainant was married—Scope and nature of jurisdiction to quash FIR and proceedings—Appreciation of evidence in a summary manner was not permissible at such stage—Facts stated in FIR and in 161 CrPC statements were to be accepted as they appeared on face of it—Allegations against petitioners prima facie sustained commission of offence—Quashing of proceedings was not warranted. (Para 16)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Palo, J.—Heard.
The petitioners have requested to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered as Crime No, 283/2013 dated 3.11.2013 at Police Station Bhitarwar district Gwalior under Sections 498A, 506, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC and also the Police Challan No. 248 dated 11.11.2013 submitted before JMFC, Bhitarwar district Gwalior, which are marked as Annexures P1 and P2 respectively.
2.Brief facts of the case are that:
The complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Saguna Bai married to accused Roop Singh 15 years ago. Due to their wedlock, two sons are born. It is alleged that her husband Roop Singh, father-in-law Khemu, mother-in-law Puniya Bai, brother-in-law (Jeth) Arjun Kushwaha, sister-in-law (Jethani) Leela Bai, sister-in-law (Nanad) (petitioner No.2) Suman and brother-in-law (Nandoi) petitioner No.1 Badam Singh (husband of the petitioner No.2) were demanding dowry. The complainant’s parents are very poor. They are unable to fulfill the demands. Roop Singh husband of the complainant and her-in-laws were harassing her physically and mentally. Roop Singh allegedly had illicit relationship with (Bhabhi) Leela Bai.
3. On 10.10.2013, the complainant was beaten by her husband Roop Singh, father-in-law Khemu, mother-in-law Puniya Bai, brother-in-law (Jeth) Arjun Kushwaha, sister-in-law (Jethani) Leela Bai with fists and kicks and also with wooden stick. She was thrown out from her matrimonial house alongwith her children.
4. Due to this, she received injuries. When she went to police station Bhitarwar for lodging the report, no action was taken by police. At the other hand, her in-laws were called to the police station in her presence. The complainant was threatened there. When she returned from police station, her husband and other family members did not allow her to enter into the matrimonial house. She felt helpless and was sitting outside the door throughout the night. The members of her matrimonial home threatened her of her life. She wrote a written complainant to the Superintendent of Police against her in-laws. On the basis of this FIR No. 283/2013 was registered on 03.11.2013 by Police Station Bhitarwar district Gwalior under Sections 498A, 506, 294, 323 and 34 of IPC.
5. Subsequently, the Police after investigation filed a charge-sheet No. 248 on 11.1l.2014. In the charge-sheet alongwith husband Roop Singh, father-in-law Khemu, mother-in-law Puniya Bai, brother-in-law (Jeth) Arjun Kushwaha, sister-in-law (Jethani) Leela Bai, sister-in-law (Nanad) Suman petitioner No. 2 and brother-in-law (Nandoi) petitioner No. 1 Badam Singh arrayed as accused persons. Consequent to this, the proceeding under Sections 498A, 323B, 294A and 506/34 of IPC has been registered.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel submitted that in the application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. at paragraphs 2 and 3, it is averred by the complainant that husband of the complainant Roop Singh, mother-in-law Puniya Bai, Jeth Arjun Kushwaha, Jethani Leela Bai, father-in-law Khemu treated her with cruelty and demanded motorcycle and Rs.50,000 as dowry and subjected her to cruelty. She was thrown out of her matrimonial home. In this application, emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioners that names of the present petitioners (Nanad) Suman and brother-in-law (Nandoi) Badam Singh has not been mentioned. It is also claimed that the petitioner No. 1 Badam Singh is a resident of village Jaura Tahsil Bhitarwar district Gwalior, which is far away from the matrimonial home of the complainant. Complainant’s in-laws house is situated at village Baniyator of the same Tahsil. In this regard copy of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and photocopy of voter Identity Card issued by the Election Commission have been submitted, which are marked as Annexures P3 and P9 respectively.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposed this submissions and stated tha
