IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal trial leading to eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon accused and such an exercise must be discouraged.

ORDER [C.A.V.]

N.K. Chandravanshi, J.—Since reliefs sought under both the petitions, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) pertains to Criminal Case No. 36794 / 2018 [State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Kumar Mishra & Others] pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, which arise from FIR/Crime No. 09/2018 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 498-A, 34 & 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity, “Act, 1961”) are of like nature, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this Common Order.

2. Cr.M.P. No. 1747 / 2018, arises out of aforesaid FIR, has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of aforesaid FIR and consequent Criminal Case No. 36794/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg whereas Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2020 has been preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 28.12.2019 passed by Second Upper Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 273/2019 upholding the order dated 17.9.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg in aforesaid criminal case, whereby application under Section 239 / 227 of the Cr.P.C. for getting discharge from the offences under Sections 498-A, 34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Act, 1961 was dismissed.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage of petitioner – Rajesh Kumar Mishra was solemnized with complainant/respondent Dr. Sapna Rani Mishra on 30th April, 2015. After few day of the marriage, petitioners started harrassing her physically and mentally in connection with demand of Gold and Rs. 10 lakh from her parents. The petitioners also taunted about quality of articles bring by her from her parental home. They also doubted upon her character. When petitioner – Smt. Snehlata Mishra (Mother-in-law of complainant) ousted the respondent/complainant and her husband, then they were residing in the rented house at Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, District Durg, at that point of time, mother of complainant had given huge amount to her husband, from which various household articles were purchased, there also petitioner – Rajesh Kumar Mishra subjected her to cruelty by abusing and assaulting her. On 21.12.2017 when respondent/complainant was working at her work place, then also, her husband went there and abused her, snatched her purse and broken her pen drive. On being complaint by respondent/complainant, Police did not lodge FIR and gave intimation under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., hence on the very next day i.e. 22.12.2017, respondent/complainant made written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg and based on that complaint, present FIR bearing Crime No. 09/2018 was registered against the petitioners.

4. After usual investigation, aforesaid charge-sheet bearing Criminal Case No. 36794/2018 was filed by the police, hence, petitioners filed Cr.M.P. No. 1747 / 2018 for quashment of FIR and consequent chargesheet. After filing of charge-sheet, the petitioners filed an application under Section 227 / 239 of the Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg for getting discharge, which was dismissed. Against which Criminal Revision No. 273 / 2019 was filed by the petitioners, which was also dismissed upholding the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg, hence, petitioners (in Cr.M.P. No. 422 of 2020) have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the aforesaid order passed by both the courts below and allowing their application under Section 227/239 of the Cr.P.C.

5. It is not in dispute that petitioner-in-person i.e. Rajesh Kumar Mishra is husband of respondent/complainant – Dr. Sapna Rani Mishra whereas Smt. Snehlata Mishra is mother-in-law, Dr. Roshni Mishra is sister-in-law and Rakesh Mishra is brother-in-law of complainant.

6. The petitioner-in-person and learned counsel