Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 177
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rajendra Mahajan, J.
Umendra @ Banti and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9637 of 2013 (Gwalior);
Decided on 27.3.2015.
Pradeep Katare for petitioners;
Ku. Nutan Saxena, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State;
Ravi Gupta for respondent No.2/informant.
Headnote:Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.420, 406 and 34 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -- Ss.3 and 4 -- prayer to quash FIR -- marriage of daughter of respondent No.2 settled with petitioner No.1 -- ceremonies like “Pan Khilai” and “Lagun Faldan” were arranged -- thereafter petitioners demanded swift car in dowry -- on non-fulfilment of demand of petitioners did not come with marriage party for solemnization of marriage -- FIR was registered under section 406/34 of IPC -- FIR reveals both criminal and civil liabilities of petitioners -- FIR does not disclose offence under which it is registered but prima facie disclosed criminal offence -- FIR connot be quashed on ground that civil remedy is available to respondent No.2 -- petition being devoid of merits and substance is dismissed.
Held : Upon the FIR being examined from the angle of the petitioners’ liabilities, this Court finds that the FIR reveals prima facie both the criminal and civil liabilities of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable that since the civil remedy is available to the respondent No.2 against the petitioners, the FIR is liable to be quashed upon this ground alone.
The allegations levelled in the FIR against the petitioners prima facie discloses other offence(s). The FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that it does not disclose the offence under section 406 of the IPC under which it is registered. The FIR cannot quashed before the commencement of investigation. Notwithstanding that the civil remedy is available to the respondent No.2 against the petitioners, the FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses prima facie criminal offence(s).. (2014)3 SCC 191, (2014)3 SCC 389, (2006)6 SCC 736, (2009)1 SCC 516, AIR 1977 SC 2229, (2006) CrLR (SC) 63, (2009)1 MPLJ 163, (1983)1 SCC 1 and (1982) SCC 561 referred to.
naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420] 406 rFkk 34 & ngst izfr”ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 3 rFkk 4 & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dks vfHk[kafMr djus dh izkFkZuk & izR;FkhZ dz-1 ds lkFk r; & ^^iku f[kykbZ** rFkk ^^yxqu Qynku** tSls lekjksgksa dk izca/k gqvk & rRi’pkr~ ;kphx.k us ngst esa fLoV dkj dh ek¡x dh & ek¡x iwjh u gksus ij & ;kphx.k ckjkr ysdj fookg ds vuq”Bku ds fy, ugha vk, & Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 406@34 ds v/khu izFke bfryk fjiksVZ ntZ & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ ;kphx.k ds vkijkf/kd rFkk flfoy nksuksa nkf;Ro izdV djrh gS & ;g og vijk/k izdV ugha djrh ftlds v/khu ;g ntZ dh xbZ fdarq izFken`”V~;k vkijkf/kd vijk/k izdV djrh gS & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ bl vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrh fd flfoy mipkj miyC/k gS & ;kfpdk xq.k&nks”k rFkk lkjghu gksus ls [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izFke bfryk fjiksVZ ij ;kphx.k ds nkf;Roksa ds dks.k ls ijh{k.k djus ij ;g U;k;ky; ikrk gS fd izFke bfryk fjiksVZ izFken`”V~;k ;kphx.k dh vkijkf/kd rFkk flfoy nksuksa nkf;Roksa dks izdV djrh gSA ekeys ds bl voyksdu ls] ;kphx.k ds fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk fd;k x;k izfrokn Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha fd pw¡fd izR;FkhZ dz-2 dks ;kphx.k ds fo:} flfoy mipkj miyC/k gS blfy, izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vdsys bl vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
izFke bfryk fjiksVZ esa ;kphx.k ds fo:} fd, x, vfHkdFku izFken`”V~;k nwljk vijk/k izdV djrs gSA izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dsoy bl vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrh fd ;g Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 406 ds v/khu vijk/k izdV ugha djrh ftlds v/khu ;g ntZ dh xbZA izFke bfryk fjiksVZ tk¡p ‘kq: gksus ds iwoZ vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrhA izR;FkhZ dz-2 dks ;kphx.k ds fo:} flfoy mipkj miyC/k gksus ij Hkh izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd ;g izFken`”V~;k vkijkf/kd izdV djrh gSA ¼2014½ 3 ,l lh lh 191] ¼2014½ 3 ,l lh lh 389] ¼2006½ 6 ,l lh lh 736] ¼2009½ 1 ,l lh lh 516] , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 2229] 2006 lhvkj ,y vkj ¼,l lh½ 63] 2009 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 163] ¼1983½ 1 ,l lh lh 1 rFkk ¼1982½ ,l lh lh 561 fufnZ”VA
1. The petitioners have evoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the CrPC praying for quashment of an FIR registered as Crime No.195/2013 at Police Station, Gormi, District Bhind, against them for the offences punishable under section 406 read with 34 of the IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case sans unnecessary details are that on 1.7.2013 informant/complainant, who is the respondent No.2 herein, has lodged a written complaint with Police Station, Gormi to the effect that the marriage of his daughter Kavita was settled with Umendra @ Banti, who is the petitioner No.1 herein, with the concurrence of the family members of prospective bride and bridegroom. In the month of December 2012, he arranged a ceremony which is known in his society as ‘Pan Khilai Ki Rasm’. In this ceremony he spent Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, he started preparation for the marriage. He paid advance money to the tent-owner, milkman, icecream vendor, decorator, photographer and beautician Rs.10,000/-, Rs.28,000/-, Rs.6,000/-, Rs.28,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. On 16.5.2013, he held Lagun and Faldan ceremony. In this ceremony, he paid rupees seven lacs in cash along with gold chain and ring to the bridegroom/petitioner No.1 Umendra and gave apparel of all types, sweets etc. to his family members. After the ceremony, petitioner No.1 Umendra, his father/petitioner No.2 Prahlad Singh and petitioner No.3 Vinod and others started demanding a “swift car” in dowry. He expressed his inability to give the car in dowry citing his economic conditions. Thereupon, they and other family members of the petitioners used to threaten him for breaking the engagement. To maintain his image in his society and the village, he paid them rupees one lac in cash and promised them that he would give the car after the solemnization of marriage. On 1.6.2013 the marriage was to be performed. But on that day, they did not come with the marriage party for solemnizing the marriage. His daughter, family members and he suffered public ignominy in the society and underwent mental torture. He gave them about nine lacs rupees. On the basis of the written complaint, an FIR was registered on 1.7.2013 as Crime No.195/2013 against the petitioners invoking section 406 read with 34 of the IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR deserves to be annulled on the following two grounds :
Firstly, section 405 of the IPC defines criminal breach of trust and the commission of offence of it is made punishable under section 406 of the IPC. A plain reading of section 405 of the IPC shows that following ingredients are required for commission of the offence of breach of trust.
(a) a person should have been entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion, over property;
(b) that person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property, or dishonestly use or dispose of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so;
(c) that such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.
Learned counsel contended that if the FIR of the case is perused vis-a-vis to the above ingredients, it is clear that not a single ingredient of breach of trust exists in the case.
Secondly, if the FIR is read as a whole it discloses that ulterior motive of the respondent No.2 is to get money back which he alleges to have been spent at the time of performance of the ceremonies as stated in the FIR. Thus, it is a simple case of civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.2, for which he should file a civil suit against them for recovery of the money. Hence, the respondent No.2 cannot convert the alleged civil liability of the petitioners into the criminal liability by lodging the FIR. In support of this contention reliance is p
