Inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent misuse of criminal law, quashing only when FIR doesn't disclose an offence.

ORDER :

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.

The present petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR No.148/2022 registered at police station Vijay Nagar, Indore under section 420, 406, 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and criminal proceedings instituted by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner vide RCT No.1809/2023 pending before the JMFC, Indore.

2. In the year 2017, the marriage was performed between the petitioner and respondent no.2 as per Indian customs and traditions in New Delhi, India. After the solemnization of marriage on 25.11.2017, the complainant and the petitioner stayed at the petitioners' father residence in Pant Nagar, Uttarakhand for a period of 1 week. On 07.12.2017 the petitioner and the complainant travelled to United States of America. It is submitted that there was a mutual agreement between the parties that the complainant will be staying with petitioner in USA after the marriage.

3. On 03.03.2022, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the petitioner seeking divorce by mutual consent and asking for Rs.1 crores alimony. The petitioner filed a petition under section 13(1)(ia) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket New Delhi. The complainant has also filed application under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT for restitution of conjugal rights with the petitioner before the District Court, Indore. Thereafter, she lodged report against the petitioner and his father as FIR No.148/2022 at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore for commission of offence 420, 406, 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. It is argued that bare reading of the FIR shows that the ingredients of offence under section 406, 420, 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act do not exist and therefore, FIR is liable to be quashed. It is also argued that the marriage had taken place in November, 2017 and the FIR was lodged on 02.02.2022. In the FIR, the correct facts were not mentioned and they misrepresented the facts. It is submitted that the said FIR was lodged after filing of the divorce petition by the petitioner. Further he submits that the allegation of not paying the amount of 30,000/- US Dollars to the aunt of the complainant is false as the said amount was paid to the account of the aunt of the complainant. The petitioner submitted that the FIR and the criminal case is nothing but is a result of abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

5. It is further submitted that the allegations are prominently of civilnature which have been given colour of a criminal case on the said ground also the FIR is liable to be quashed.

6. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the co-ordinate bench at Jabalpur in the case of Ganpat Meena and Ors Vs. State of MP and Anr passed in M.Cr.C No.44242/2023 decided on 14.11.2024. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.4003/2024.

7. Learned counsel for the state and respondent no.2 opposed the prayer and vehemently argued that the same FIR was challenged by the father of the applicant Sunil Rastogi in M.Cr.C No.45474/2022 and this Court examined the facts of the case and also the allegation contained in FIR in para no