SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(MP) 462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Prashant Sharma and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.319 of 2015 (Gwalior) : challenging FIR in Crime No.205/2014, registered by Mahila Police Station, Padav District Gwalior; Decided on 6.2.2017.

Advocates:
P.S. Bhadoria for applicants;
Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State;
J.P. Mishra for respondent No.2.

Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.498A and 506 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -- S.3/4 -- complainant harassed and treated with cruelty due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry -- FIR registered under -- challenged -- in absence of any allegation of harassment due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry -- allegations made in FIR do not make out prima facie case against applicant No.5 -- prima facie evidence available against applicants No.1 to 4 -- criminal proceedings against them cannot be quashed at this stage -- FIR in Crime No.205/2015 and consequential proceedings against applicant No.5 quashed -- her petition allowed -- petition of applicants No.1 to 4 dismissed.

       Held : Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that so far as the applicants No.1 to 4 are concerned, there are sufficient allegations against them and therefore, FIR or the consequential proceedings against the applicants No.1 to 4 cannot be quashed. So far as the applicant No.5 is concerned, the FIR in Crime No.205/2015 registered by Mahila Police Station Padav, District Gwalior and the consequential proceedings against her are hereby quashed. 2015(2) JLJ 1 (SC), (2000)5 SCC 207 and (2007)12 SCC 369 followed.

        naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d rFkk 506 && ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 3@4 && ifjoknh dks ngst dh ekWx iwjh u djus ds dkj.k ijs'kku fd;k x;k rFkk Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k x;k && mica/kks ds v/khu izFke bfŸkyk fjiksVZ jftLVªhd`r && vk{ksfir && ngst dh ekWx iwjh u djus ds dkj.k ijs'kku djus ds fdlh Hkh vfHkdFku dh vuqifLFkfr esa && izFke bfŸkyk fjiksVZ esa fd, x, vfHkdFku vkosnd Ø-5 ds fo:) izFken`"V~;k dksbZ ekeyk ugha cukrs && vukosndx.k Ø-1 ls 4 ds fo:) izFken`"V~;k lk{; miyC/k && muds fo:) bl Lrj ij nkafM+d dk;Zokfg;kW vfHk[kfM+r ugha dh tk ldrh && vijk/k Ø205@2015 esa izFke bfŸkyk fjiksVZ rFkk ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokfg;kW vkosnd Ø-5 ds fo:) vfHk[kafM+r && mldh ;kfpdk eatwj && vkosndx.k Ø-1 ls 4 dh ;kfpdk [kkfjtA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh laiw.kZrk ij fopkj djrs gq, bl U;k;ky; dh ;g lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd tgkW rd vkosndx.k Ø-1 ls 4 dk lac/k gS] muds fo:) i;kZIr vfHkdFku gS rFkk blfy, vkosndx.k Ø-1 ls 4 ds fo:) izFke bfŸkyk fjiksVZ ;k ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokfg;kW vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrhA tgkW rd vkosnd Ø-5 dk lac/k gS] vijk/k Ø-205@2015 esa efgyk iqfyl Fkkuk] iM+ko] ftyk Xokfy;j }kjk jftLVMZ izFke bfŸkyk fjiksVZ rFkk ikfj.kkfed dk;Zokfg;kW mlds fo:) ,rn~}kjk vfHk[kafM+r dh tkrh gSA 2015 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 207 RkFkk ¼2007½ 12 ,l lh lh 369 vuqlfjrA

       

ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally.

2. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed challenging the FIR in Crime No.205/2014 registered by Mahila Police Station, Padav, District Gwalior for offences punishable under sections 498A and 506 of IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this application in short are that the complainant/respondent No.2, lodged a written complaint on 8.12.2014 against the applicants alleging inter alia that she was married to the applicant No.1 as per Hindu rites and rituals on 26.2.2014. At the time of marriage, apart from valuable household articles, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was given by her father in cash. When she went to her matrimonial house after marriage, all the applicants started passing taunts that less cash has been given in the marriage. All used to say that the complainant has three elder brothers and all of them are earning and since, they have spent lot of money on marriage, therefore, the complainant should bring 10,00,000/- from her parents. All the applicants used to laugh at the complainant. The husband used to say that she is not beautiful. The applicant No.5 (sister of father-in-law) was saying that they would get the applicant No.1 remarried. The applicants were getting the entire household work done from the complainant and they also used to say that she is short heighted. All the applicants started harassing her physically and mentally and used to say that she cannot see during the night. On 8.4.2014, her father-in-law informed her father that they should take her back as she is not well. When her father and brother tried to convince her in-laws, then all the applicants started making demand of Rs.10 lacs. On 8.4.2014, she was sent along with her father and brother without allowing her to take extra cloths and from thereafter they have not come to take her back. Thus, it was mentioned that the complainant does not want to reconciliate with her in-laws any more. The police accordingly registered the offence under sections 498A and 506 of IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that they have been falsely implicated. The applicant No.4 who is the younger brother-in-law of the respondent No.2/complainant and is working in Delhi and is residing separately. It was further submitted that several applications were given by the applicant No.1 against false implication however, no proper investigation has been done. It was further submitted that the FIR has been lodged by way of counter blast as the applicant No.1 has filed a suit for divorce.

5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant/respondent No.2 was harassed and treated with cruelty due to non-fulfilment of their demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the complainant/respondent No.2 had filed an application before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra where the applicant No.1 had appeared along with the applicants No.3 and 4. The complainant/respondent No.2 was ready and willing to go with the applicant No.1, but in fact the applicant No.1 is not interested in keeping her with him. It is further submitted that in the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, the applicants No.1, 2, 3 and 4 had appeared whereas only the applicant No.1 was summoned, which clearly show that the applicant No.4 is also actively interfering with the family affairs of the applicant No.1 and the complainant/respondent No.2.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that so far as the applicant No.5 is concerned, she has been arrayed as an accused merely because she is the sister of father-in-law ( cqvk ) of the applicant No.1. Although she is also the resident of Gwalior but she is residing separately from the family of the applicant No.1. The applicant No.5 has her own separate family and she is looking after her family and has n






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top