ORDER

1. Since present matters are connected and arises out by the crime No. 18/2017 registered at police Station- Mahila Thana, Ratlam for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 323/34 of IPC. are being decided by the present common order.

2. The applicants/accused persons preferred MCrC No. 9360/2018 for quashment of FIR bearing crime No. 18/2017 registered at Police Station- Mahila Than, Ratlam and all consequential proceedings which has been registered in furtherance to the said FIR.

3. The applicants preferred MCrCNo. 2431/2019 under section 482 of CrPC challenging the order dated 22.9.2018 passed by Sessions Judge,Ratlam in Criminal Revision No. 87/2018 whereby the order dated 17.7.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam in criminal case No. 2215/2017 has been affirmed by which charge under section 498A, 323/34 of IPC. has been framed against the applicants.

4. The facts leading to filing of instant applications are that marriage was solemnized between the applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (MCrC No. 9360/2018) on 20.2.2017. According to the complaint made by respondent No. 2, the present applicants were harassing her since the date of marriage for demand of motorcycle, however, she tolerated the harassment with a hope that in future applicants will mend their ways and will treat the respondent No. 2 properly. Although, the situation did not improve and on 29.7.2017 respondent No. 2 was thrown out from the matrimonial home in presence of his father and maternal uncle. They also told that she cannot come home until she arranges the motorcycle, cash amount and golden chain. The respondent No. 2 has submitted a written complaint to the police Station Mahila Thana, Ratlam and on the basis of which the police registered the FIR bearing crime No. 18/2017 for the offence punishable under section 498A, 323/34 of IPC. against the applicants. After completion of the investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against the applicants and on the basis of which, the learned Judicial Magistrate first Class, Ratlam framed the charges against the applicants for the aforesaid offence. In order to seek quashing of FIR as well as criminal proceedings, the instant applications have been filed.

5. it has been stated that the applicants have preferred instant application rather than invoking the revisional jurisdiction for the order of framing of charge citing the reason that one petition under section 482 of CrPC was already pending for quashment of the FIR and this Court under section 482 CrPC has wider jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the plain reading of the contents of the FIR does not reveal commission of offences levelled against the applicants. Moreover, the FIR has been lodged in order to defeat the proceedings initiated by the applicant No. 1 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. It has also been contended that on 6.11.2017, the applicant No. 1 made a written complaint to police Station- Mahila Thana, Ratlam, Police Station Imli Bazar (Sadar Bazar), Indore and Superintendent of Police, Ratlam and Indore against the complainant and during the enquiry of the aforesaid complaint as a counter blast, the complainant got registered the FIR against the applicants accusing them for making demand of dowry and illtreatment. It is further submitted that the complaint made by the respondent No. 2 has been promtly taken up and FIR was registered on the same very date whereas a matter of policy, it is obligatory for the police to first referred the mattere before the family counseling center and only thereafter to registere an FIR against the accused persons. He has further placed relianced on several judicial pronouncement by the Supreme Court and this High Court to substantiate his contentions.

7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has pointed out that the contents of the complaint do disclose commission of cognizable