The pendency of a civil proceeding does not automatically end a criminal proceeding, and specific allegations of harassment and demand of dowry warrant further investigation.

JUDGMENT

1. Case diary in connected case, M.Cr.C. No. 10610/2022, has been received.

2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 741/2021 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 498-A, 377, 506, 34 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. According to the prosecution case, the respondent no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicants alleging inter alia that she got married to the applicant on 13/07/2013 and her father had given sufficient dowry as per his financial capability. After one year of her marriage, she gave birth to a child, who is mentally retarded and his treatment is going on. After the birth of his child, the applicant and her mother-in-law started passing taunts with regard to the disease of her son and they used to pass taunts that not only her father has not give anything to them but also the complainant has given birth to such a boy, for whose treatment they are required to spend money and accordingly, they started insisting that the complainant must bring Rs. 10,00,000/- from her father. When she refused to bring money, then she was assaulted by the applicant. When she informed her parents about the demand made by her in-laws, then her mother-in-law, Jeth Krishna Lal Bhargava, Alok Bhargava, sister-in-law Rekha Sharma and her husband Ashok Sharma started harassing her physically and mentally and they were continuously demanding dowry.

4. During her stay with the applicant, he had committed unnatural sex on various occasions and whenever she objected, then she was beaten by the applicant. The applicant used to threaten that in case if she narrates anything to her family members, then she would be killed and as she was afraid, therefore, she did not disclose anything to anybody. In the month of July, 2020 her husband left her in her parental home alongwith her son. When the complainant insisted that she would reside with her husband, then she was beaten and threatened that unless and until she brings money, she should not come.

5. Challenging the FIR, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the police has registered the offence contrary to the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 as well as contrary to the circular issued by the Director General of Police to the effect that before registration of an offence like 498-A of IPC, the police officer must go for reconciliation proceedings. It is further submitted that the applicants are residing separately from the family of the complainant and her husband. The respondent no.2 has suppressed this fact that her husband is presently residing in Puna and the husband of the respondent no.2 has filed a divorce petition against respondent no.2 before the Family Court, Dewas on 4/9/2020 and the respondent no.2 has appeared through her counsel and reply has been filed, whereas the FIR has been registered on 3/12/2021. It is submitted that since the respondent no.2 has lodged the FIR immediately after submitting her written statement in the divorce petition, therefore, it clearly indicates that the FIR has been lodged by way of counterblast. The applicants have nothing to do with the family affairs of the respondent no.2 and her husband. Since the husband of respondent no.2 himself has deposited certain amount in the bank account of respondent no.2, therefore, it is clear that there was no demand of dowry.

6. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State as well as respondent no.2. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that if the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then the police is left with no other option but to register the FIR.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The first contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the FIR in question has been lodged by way of counterblast t