Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B.D. Rathi, J.
Ravikant Dubey and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5944 of 2012 (Gwalior);
Decided on 13.2.2014.
Held : Keeping in view the above discussions and proposition of law and facts narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that even entire facts mentioned in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, therefore, it is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court vested under section 482 of the Code to prevent the abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the FIR registered at Crime No.181/2012 at Police Station, Kotwali Bhind and thereafter registered as Criminal Case No.81/2012 (probably New Criminal Case No.2028/2012) for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC is hereby quashed. Petitioners are discharged of the charges punishable under section 498A of IPC, meaning thereby entire proceedings in connection with Crime No.181/2012 and Criminal Case No.81/2012 are hereby dropped. 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, AIR 1960 SC 866 and (2009)10 SCC 184 followed.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- truthfulness, sufficiency or acceptability of evidence deposed in Court can be judged only at stage of trial -- High Court cannot appreciate the evidence on merits while exercising inherent jurisdiction. 2001 Cri.LJ 800, 2006 Cri.LJ 4441 and 2007 Cri.LJ 707 referred to. [Para 14
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 498d & fookfgr efgyk ds lkFk ifr rFkk mlds ukrsnkjksa )kjk dzwjrk ds vfHkdFku & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ ds ifj’khyu ij izFken`”V~;k dksbZ fofufnZ”V vijk/k ugha cuk & ukfer vfHk;qDrksa dk fopkj.k fof/kd rFkk U;kf;d izfdz;k dk Li”V nq:i;ksx gksxk & varfufgZr vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx djrs gq, izFke bfryk fjiksVZ rFkk laiw.kZ i’pkr~orhZ nkafMd dk;Zokfg;k¡ vfHk[kafMr & rn~uqlkj vfHk;qDr lHkh vkjksiksa ls nks”keqDrA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fof/k dh iwoksZDr foospukvksa rFkk izfriknukvksa rFkk Åij of.kZr rF;ksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, bl U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd Hkys gh izFke bfryk fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr laiw.kZ rF;ksa dks mUgha :i esa fy;k tk, rFkk mudks laiw.kZ :i esa Lohdkj fd;k tk,] os vfHk;qDr ds fo:) izFken`”V~;k fdlh vijk/k dk xBu ugha djrs ;k dksbZ ekeyk ugha cukrs] blfy,] fof/k dh izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx jksdus gsrq lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu fufgr bl U;k;ky; dh varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;ksa dk voyac ysus ds fy, ;g mi;qDr ekeyk gSA rn~uqlkj] naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/k ds fy, iqfyl Fkkuk dksrokyh fHkaM esa jftLVªhd`r izFke bfryk fjiksVZ rFkk rRi’pkr~ vkijkf/kd ekeyk dz-81 lu~ 2012 ¼vf/klaHkkO;r% u;k vkijkf/kd ekeyk dz-2028 lu~ 2012½ ds :i esa jftLVªhd`r ekeyk ,rn~)kjk vfHk[kafMr fd;k tkrk gSA ;kphx.k naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 498d ds v/khu vkjksiksa ls mUeksfpr fd, tkrs gS] ,rn~)kjk vfHkizsr gS fd vijk/k dz-181 lu~ 2012 rFkk vkijkf/kd ekeyk dz-81 lu~ 2012 ,rn~)kjk lekIr fd, tkrs gSA 1992 ,l lh lh ¼lhvkj½ 426] , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 866 rFkk ¼2009½10 ,l lh lh 184 vuqlfjrA ¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & U;k;ky; esa vfHklkf{;r lk{; dh lR;rk] i;kZI;rk ;k xzkºrk dh tk¡p dsoy fopkj.k ds izdze esa gh dh tk ldrh gS & mPp U;k;ky; varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx djrs le; xq.kkxq.k ds vk/kkj ij lk{; dk ewY;kadu ugha dj ldrkA 2001 lhvkj ,y ts 800] 2006 lhvkj ,y ts 4441 rFkk 2007 lhvkj ,y ts 707 fufnZ”VA ¼iSjk 14½
1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is heard finally.
2. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for invoking the inherent powers of this Court to seek the relief that FIR registered at Crime No.181/2012 for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bhind and criminal proceedings arisen from the aforesaid crime number at Criminal Case No.81/2012 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhind may be quashed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner No.1-Ravikant Dubey was solemnized with respondent No.2-complainant on 27.11.2010 as per Hindu rituals and rites at Bhind. Petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is Jeth, petitioner No.3 is Jethani, petitioner No.4 is mother-in-law, petitioner No.4 is Nandoi and petitioner No.6 is Nanad of the complainant-respondent No.2. There was matrimonial discord between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-complainant. On the basis of written complaint filed by the complainant-respondent No.2 a case was registered at Crime No.181/2012 at Police Station Kotwali, Bhind for the offence punishable under section 498A against the petitioners. In the complaint filed by the complainant it is alleged that after marriage, she went to her in-laws house at Jamuna Nagar, Bhind, where her husband Ravikant, Nandoi Nathuram, mother-in-law Urmila, Nanad Mamta, father-in-law Chandrashekar, Jeth Rajeev, Jethani Renubala, Nanad Sarita and Nandoi Kaushlendra started treating her with cruelty. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment with regard to demand of four wheeler, thereafter she came to her parental house and lodged the FIR against the petitioners. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners under section 498A of IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bhind, registered as Criminal Case No.81/2012.
4. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that if the entire facts mentioned in the FIR taken into consideration in its totality, even then no case is made out under section 498A of IPC against the petitioners, therefore, to prevent the abuse of process of law the entire proceedings may be quashed. It is also submitted that though charge-sheet has been filed, some evidence has also been recorded by the trial Court, even then inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be invoked at any stage to prevent the abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments :
(I) Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010)7 SCC 667];
(II) Sathish Mehra v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another [AIR 2013 SC 506]; and
(III) Rashida Begum (Smt.) v. Smt. Fatima Bano [2014(I) MPWN 29].
5. Prayer was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the ground that because of sufficient evidence, charge-sheet was filed, thereafter cognizance was taken, charges were framed, and evidence of some witnesses were also recorded, but at any point of time not a single proceeding was challenged by the petitioners, not only this but trial is at fag end and this petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the following judgments :
(I) State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 SCC (Cri) 426];
(II) State of Orissa v. Devendra Nath Padhi [2005 SCC (Cri) 415].
6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State opposed the petition and prayed for its rejection and has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Bharat Parikh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [(2008)10 SCC 109].
7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,entire record and material available on record has been perused.
8. In view of the above, th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
