Kallu Khan vs State of M. P. - 2013 Supreme(MP) 422

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(MP) 422

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
D.K. Paliwal, J.
Kallu Khan and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9992 of 2012 (Gwalior);
Decided on 1.8.2013.

Advocates:
Shishir Saxena for petitioners;
Anil Kumar Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State;
Vilas Tikhe for respondent No.2.

Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.498A, 506 and 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -- Ss.3 and 4 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and beating after 9 years of marriage -- no specific details regarding crime mentioned in report -- silence of complainant for 9 years proves the allegations inherently improbable, absured and malicious -- continuance of criminal trial would be sheer abuse of process of law -- accordingly criminal proceedings quashed.
       Held : Though, it is not a stage for finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegation but looking to the allegation that after marriage respondent-complainant was being harassed for and in connection with the demand of dowry, the silence of respondent-complainant for about 9 years, shows that allegations is so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same.
       For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of the criminal trial against the petitioners would be sheer abuse of process of law. (2010)7 SCC 667, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, (2005)1 SCC 122, (2007)12 SCC 1 and (2012)10 SCC 741 followed.
       (2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- Courts have inherent powers to quash the malicious complaint. (2010)7 SCC 667, 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335, (2005)1 SCC 122, (2007)12 SCC 1 and (2012)10 SCC 741 followed. [Paras 11 to 16
       ¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d] 506 rFkk 323 && ngst izfr”ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 3 rFkk 4 && naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && fookg ds 9 o”kZ i’pkr~ ngst] izrkM+uk rFkk ekjihV ds vkjksi && vijk/k ds laca/k esa dksbZ fofufnZ”V fooj.k fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr ugha && ukS o”kZ rd ifjoknh dk ekSu vkjksiksa dks varfuZfgrr% vuf/klaHkkO;] fujFkZd rFkk fo}s”kiw.kZ lkfcr djrk gS && nkafMd fopkj.k dk tkjh jguk fof/k dh izfØ;k dk ek= nq:I;ksx && rn~uqlkj nkafMd dk;Zokfg;k¡ vfHk[kafMrA
       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;|fi] ;g vkjksi dh lR;rk ;k vU;Fkk dk irk yxkus dk izØe ugha gS ijarq bl vkjksi dks ns[krs gq, fd fookg ds i’pkr~ izR;FkhZ&ifjoknh dks ngst dh ek¡x ds fy, rFkk mlds laca/k esa izrkfM+r fd;k tk jgk Fkk] izR;FkhZ&ifjoknh ds yxHkx 9 o”kZ rd ekSu ls ;g nf’kZr gksrk gS fd vkjksi brus fujFkZd gSa fd dksbZ Hkh foosdh O;fDr bUgsa Lohdkj ugha djsxkA
       ,rfLeu~iwoZ dfFkr dkj.kksa ls] esjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd ;kphx.k ds fo:) nkafMd fopkj.k dk tkjh jguk fof/k dh izfØ;k dk ek= nq:I;ksx gksxkA ¼2010½7 ,l lh lh 667] 1992 lIyh-¼1½ ,l lh lh 335] ¼2005½1 ,l lh lh 122] ¼2007½12 ,l lh lh 1 rFkk ¼2012½10 ,l lh lh 741 vuqlfjrA
       ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && U;k;ky;ksa dks nqHkkZoukiw.kZ ifjokn vfHk[kafMr djus dh varfuZfgr ‘kfDr izkIr gSA ¼2010½7 ,l lh lh 667] 1992 lIyh-¼1½ ,l lh lh 335] ¼2005½1 ,l lh lh 122] ¼2007½12 ,l lh lh 1 rFkk ¼2012½10 ,l lh lh 741 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11 ls 16½

ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the Criminal Case No.2183/2012 pending in the Court of CJM, Guna, under sections 498A, 506, 323 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are tha, respondent No.2, who is the wife of the petitioner No.3 Imran Khan, has lodged the report against the petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband respectively, alleging that her marriage was solemnized in accordance with Muslim rituals on 17.12.2003 with Imran Khan and after marriage Imran Khan and Kallu Khan started demanding cash of Rs.1 lac. When the complainant stated that her father is not in a position to fulfil the demand, then respondent No.2 was harassed and beaten by the petitioners and when respondent No.2 told this fact to her parents, then her father tried to settle the dispute but petitioners continued their demand. It is further alleged that on 22.7.2012 petitioners have beaten the complainant and left her in her parental house. On 18.9.2012 at about 12:00 p.m. petitioners came at parents house of the complainant and started beating the complainant and insisted to fulfil the demand of dowry. On the report, FIR at Crime No.417/2012 under sections 498A, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the petitioners and after due investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of CJM, Guna.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 is residing separately with his parents since 2005 and in this regard agreement has also been executed. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant and before lodging the FIR complainant had filed an application under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and reply ws filed by petitioner No.3 on 18.9.2012 and on the same day complainant has also filed an application for interim maintenance. Criminal proceedings have been initiated by the respondent with a view to harass the petitioners. Prima facie, there is no material against the petitioners for holding that they have committed the alleged offence.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that after due investigation the charge-sheet has been filed and there is ample material against the petitioners that they have committed the offence punishable under sections 498A, 506, 323 and 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibiton Act, hence, no interference is required.

5. From perusal of the report lodged by Kafiya Khan, it is transpired that her marriage took place with Imran Khan on 17.12.2003 and after marriage, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to demand dowry of Rs.1 lac. She was treated with cruelty due to non-fulfilment of the said demand. It is further alleged that on 22.7.2012 she was beaten by her husband and her in-laws and they left her at her parental home. On 18.9.2012 her husband and in-laws came to her parental house and demanded dowry and beaten her.

6. The application filed by Kallu Khan to SHO, P.S. Aron, reveals that Kallu Khan has stated that he has separated his son vide agreement dated 29.7.2011, this application has been submitted on 5.8.2010. Imran Khan has submitted an application before S.P. Guna alleging that his wife is threatening him to implicate in dowry case. It appears that on 25.7.2012, respondent has filed an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth and two sisters-in-law alleging that she is being mentally harassed because she could not deliver the child.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the report lodged at Police Station, Kotwali on 18.9.2012, it is mentioned that o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(MP) 422

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTD.K. Paliwal, J.Kallu Khan and others v. State of M.P. and anotherMiscellaneous Criminal Case No.9992 of 2012 (Gwalior); Decided on 1.8.2013.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
D.K. Paliwal, J.
Kallu Khan and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9992 of 2012 (Gwalior);
Decided on 1.8.2013.