Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3658 of 2016 (Gwalior);
Decided on 9.3.2017.
Held : Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the entire allegations are considered on their face value, then there is no specific allegation against any of the applicants and they have been implicated merely because they happens to be the near relatives of the husband of the respondent No.2 and, therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be proper to compel the applicants to face the agony of criminal prosecution. (2012)10 SCC 741, (2010)7 SCC 667, (2000)5 SCC 207 and 2013(1) UC 155 followed. [Para 14
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- maintainability of -- if charges framed -- and even some of witnesses examined -- petition can be decided on merits -- petition may not be dismissed.
Held : Thus, it is held that d uring the pendency of the petition under section 482 of CrPC, if the charges have been framed and even if some of the witnesses have been examined, the petition can be decided on merits. (2012)13 SCC 614 followed. 2014(2) JLJ 25 relied on.
¼1½ naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 498d rFkk 323 && ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 1961 && /kkjk 3@4 && mica/k ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;kW vfHk[kafM+r djkus ds fy, && izFke oxZ U;kf;d eftLVsªV ds U;k;ky; esa yafcr && vk{ksfir && vkosndx.k esa ls fdlh ds Hkh fo:) fofufnZ"V vfHkdFku ugha && mUgksusa ek= blfy, vkfyIr fd;k D;ksafd os izR;FkhZ Ø-2 ds ifr ds /kfu"V laca/kh gksrs gS && vkosndx.k dks nkafM+d vfHk;kstu dh ;a=.kk dk lkeuk djus ds fy, ck/; djuk mfpr ugha gksxk && vkosndx.k ds fo:) yafcr vkjksi&i= rFkk dk;Zokfg;kW vfHk[kafMr & vkosnu eatwjA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl izdkj] bl U;k;ky; dh ;g lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd ;fn laiw.kZ vfHkdFkuksa tSls gS os gh Lohdkj djus ij fopkj Hkh fd;k tkrk gS rc vkosndx.kksa esa ls fdlh ds fo:) Hkh fofufnZ"V vfHkdFku ugha gS rFkk mUgs ek=] blfy, vkfyIr fd;k x;k D;ksafd os izR;FkhZ Ø-2 ds /kfu"B lac/kh gksrs gS rFkk blfy,] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa es] vkosndx.k dks nkafM+d vfHk;kstu dh ;a=.kk dk leku djus ds fy, ck/; djuk mfpr ugha gksxkA ¼2012½ 10 ,l lh lh 741] ¼2010½ 7 ,l lh lh 667] ¼2000½ 5 ,l lh lh 207 rFkk 2013 ¼1½ ;w lh 155 vuqlfjrA ¼2½ naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && dh izpyu'khyrk && ;fn vkjksi fojfpr && rFkk lkf{k;ksa esa ls dqN dk ijh{k.k gksus ij Hkh && ;kfpdk xq.kkxq.k ij fofuf'pr dh tk ldrh gS && ;kfpdk [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrhA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl izdkj] ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu ;kfpdk ds yacu ds nkSjku ;fn vkjksi fojfpr fd, x, rFkk ;fn lkf{k;ksa esa ls dqN dk ijh{k.k Hkh dj fy, tkus ij Hkh ;kfpdk xq.kkxq.k ij fofuf'pr dh tk ldrh gSA ¼2012½ 13 ,l lh lh 614 vuqlfjrA 2014 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 25 voyafcrA
1. The present application has been filed under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.2338/2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Distt. Morena for offences punishable under sections 498A,323 of I.P.C. and under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present application in short are that the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a FIR against the applicants as well as against Saurabh (Husband), Veerpal (Father-in-law), and Smt. Vinod (Mother-in-law) alleging that She is married to Saurabh as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, her father had given Rs.1,11,000 in cash, apart from Fridge, Washing Machine, Double Bed and all other household articles and gold ornaments. Her in-laws kept her properly for near about 3-4 months but thereafter the applicants and her husband and parents-in-law started demanding Rs.50,000/-. After some time, all started demanding Rs.2 lacs and a motor cycle. When her parents refused to give the same, all her in-laws started harassing her for want of dowry. They used to beat her and even food was not given properly, and they used to say that till, the respondent No.2 do not bring dowry, they will continue to harass her. On 25.8.2012 She came back to her parents house. She gave birth to a female child but no body came there to see her. A panchayat was convened and thereafter She came back to her matrimonial house. On 26.7.2015, again all of her in-laws started harassing her and beating her and a report was lodged by her. As she is still being harassed by her in-laws, therefore, FIR was lodged. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the applicants and against Saurabh (Husband), Veerpal (Father-in-law), and Smt. Vinod (Mother-in-law).
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicant No.1 is elder brother-in-law ? tsB ?, applicant No.2 is the wife of applicant No. 1 ? tsBkuh ?, applicant No.3 is sister-in-law ? uUn ? and the applicant No.4 is the husband of applicant No.3 ? uUnksbZ ?. It is submitted that the applicants No.1 and 2 are residing in Ahmedabad (Gujarat) where the applicant No.2 is doing Sewing Course and his son Kunal is studying in Class 3rd in R.H. Kapdia Primary School, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. The certificate and the fee card of the child have also been placed on record. Similarly the applicant No.3 is working as Assistant Teacher, Primary School Magarpura (Dabar) Kshetra Nadi gaon, Jalon (Utter Pradesh). The appointment order and the certificates have also been placed on record. The applicant No.4 is working in a private company and at present he is residing in Flat No. 4, Wahid Manzil, Near Jalram Mandir, Anand Nagar, Vapi, District Balsad (Gujarat) where he is working in Welspun India Limited, which is a private Company. The appointment order, time statement etc. have also been placed on record. Thus, it is the contention of the applicants that they have been falsely implicated merely because they happens to be the near relatives of Saurabh, the husband of the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that no specific allegation has been made against the applicants and only vague and omnibus allegations have been made. It is further submitted that the case of the near and distant relatives of husband stand on a different footing and therefore, unless and until there are specific allegations against them, they should not be compelled to face the trial and a tendency is increasing in the society to falsely and over-implicate the relatives of the husband so as to pressurize the husband.
4. Per Contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents, that there are sufficient allegations against the applicants for their prosecution. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the charges have been framed and the case is fixed for recording of evidence on 24.3.2017.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. I
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
