JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Petitioners are calling in question the impugned FIR vide Crime No.437 of 201921 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Morena (MP) by which, offences have been registered against petitioners along with other co-accused under Sections 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Facts leading to filing of present petition, in short, are that on 12/04/2019, complainant respondent No.2 lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali, Morena stating therein that on 08/04/2016 her marriage was solemnized with one Pradip Singh Sikarwar, resident of Gopalpura, Morena as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.7.5 lac along with household articles, worth Rs.2,50,000/-; and clothes, worth Rs.50,000/- were given by her father. For one to two months of the marriage, her in-laws kept her living in peace and then first of all, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to torture her and their behaviour remains changed and they started taunting on her and even did not provide food to her properly. They were telling her to bring AC, Car and Rs.10 lac as dowry and when she objected to it, they use to ''marpeet'' with her. Her sister-in-law and brother in law (Nanand and Nanandoi) both usually to visit her in-laws house and induced her husband to torture her in regard to bringing the aforesaid dowry. On 30/04/2018, her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law (herein petitioner no.2) committed ''marpeet'' with her and tried to turn out of house by saying that, if she fails to bring the car and money, they should not keep her in house and they would kill her. This fact was narrated by the complainant to her father by phone and called him. Thereafter, she went along with her father and she started living at Bhopal in her parents house. Her parents and relatives tried to convince her in-laws family, but same could not get succeeded. On the basis of allegation of demand of dowry as well as cruelty, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other co-accused for offences as mentioned in para 1 of this order.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanandoi and Nanand) of the complainant and their marriage was solemnized at Gormi, Bhind on 29/11/2008 and thereafter, they are residing at Gwalior along with their minor child aged around 8 years. Petitioner No.1 is an Assistant Teacher in Education Department, Gormi, Bhind and he usually to travel and back to place at Gwalior. It is further submitted that marriage of complainant with the brother of petitioner No.2 was solemnized on 18/04/2016 but in the impugned FIR, it has been wrongly mentioned as 08/04/2016 by the complainant which creates a doubt on the allegation. The husband of the complainant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before Family Court Morena. The father of the complainant is also working as CISF at Nasik. Various applications were filed before police authorities of Nasik, Morena and Bhopal, but no steps were taken by police authorities in the matter. Only, on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations, petitioners have been falsely implicated on the ground of close relative of husband of complainant. It is further contended that the tendency of implicating husband and all his relatives is also not uncommon and even after conclusion of trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. In support of contention, the counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand AIR 2010 SC 3363. It is further submitted that after filing of application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by the husband of complainant, impugned FIR has been lodged by complainant with an ulterior motive and same is an afterthought, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed in the light of the judgment passed by