The court highlighted the importance of specific allegations and prima facie establishment of the offence before taking cognizance against the accused, especially in matrimonial cases.

JUDGMENT

B.D. Rathi, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1043/13 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena.

2. Brief facts that would emerge from the FIR dated 3/1/2013 are that the marriage of the respondent No. 2-Smt. Pratibha was solemnized with petitioner No. 1-Ravi Parashar on 21/11/2007 as per Hindu customs and ritual rites. It is stated that in the marriage of her daughter, the father of respondent No. 2 had given some articles in the shape of dowry to the husband-petitioner No. 1 and his other relations. It is also stated that till one year, the petitioners kept the respondent No. 2 well but thereafter petitioners started raising demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and for non-fulfillment of their demands, respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental torture. Ultimately, respondent No. 2 was turned out from the matrimonial home on the pretext that she had not brought sufficient dowry. Hence, she lodged the report against the petitioners. Crime No. 8/13 was registered for committing offence under section 498A of I.P.C. and pursuant thereto criminal case is pending before the court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition inter alia submitting that the FIR was lodged with malafide intentions to harass the petitioners and that no case is made out against the petitioners as well as other family members.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a false report has been lodged against the petitioners and it is against such brief factual backdrop that a suit for divorce was filed against the respondent No. 2 by her husband/petitioner No. 1, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further pointed out by the counsel that on perusal of the pleadings of the petition filed under Section 13 of the HMA, it is evident that the marital relations were not cordial between the both right from the beginning and therefore the petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for divorce in the month of July, 2012. He also filed a private complaint on 26/9/2012 against his wife/respondent No. 2 and others in the criminal court to register a case under section 323, 294, 506 part-II/34 of I.P.C. and to counter blast the same respondent 2 has lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners on 3/1/2013. She also filed an application for grant of Rs. 10,000/- towards monthly maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for herself and her child against her husband/petitioner No. 1-Ravi. It is further pointed out by the counsel that during the span of five years neither such complaint was filed nor such allegations were made by the respondent No. 2. On the contrary, she on her own free will left the matrimonial house and started living with her parents at Ambah for the last one year. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken as true, even then on their face value they do not disclose prima facie commission of the offences against the petitioners. Hence, on these premised submissions, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the relief claimed for may be granted in favour of the petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon. Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & another Vs. State of Jharkhand & another, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 667 and of this court in the case of Ravikant s/o Chandrashekhar Dubey & others Vs. State of M.P. & another, 2014 (1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 282.

4. Controverting the arguments aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/complainant, submitted that the FIR and the initial depositions of the witnesses prima facie disclose commission of the offence alleged and therefore the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed, at this stage. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 was subject to cruelty and h