NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No.569 of 2018

1. G. Jagmohan Rao, S/o G. Kalidas, Cast- Kalar, Aged about 36 years, R/o 76/C, Zone-01, B.M.Y. Charoda, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G.

2. G. Jagnath Rao, S/o G. Kalidas, Cast- Kalar, Aged about 44 years, R/o 76/C, Zone-01, , B.M.Y. Charoda, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G.

---- Petitioners Versus

1. Smt. G. Dhanlaxmi, W/o G. Jagmohan Rao, D/o Late Y. Malleshwar Rao, Aged about 36 years, Cast- Kalar, R/o Behind Narshing Hotel, Puraina Bhilai, P.S.- Bhilai-3, District- Durg, C.G.

2. State of Chhattisgarh through- P.S. Purani Bhilai, District- Durg.

---- Respondents Cause-title taken from Case Information System For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None though served For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Smt.Rajani Dubey, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

29.04.2024

1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.2/State.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC with the following prayer:-

“1. That the Humble Court may please to quash entire Challan No. 140/17 further drop the proceeding drawn & based on the F.I.R. No. 130/17 filed u/S 498-A, 34 of IPC of Criminal Case No. 325/17 in the interest of justice

2.That any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which the Hon’ble Court may find deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case & in the interest of justice.”

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner No.-1 is husband and Petitioner No.2 is brother in law of the complainant/respondent No.1. Marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 16.02.2005 in accordance with Hindu rituals and rites and from their wedlock two children were born. After about 11 years of marriage, respondent No.2 filed complaint before the Police Station- Bhilai-3 alleging the petitioners for demand of dowry. The matter was reported to police station on 24.04.2017 upon which the police registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 130/17 u/s 498-A, 34 of IPC against the petitioners. During investigation, the complainant has admitted that she was married to petitioner on 16.02.2005. further, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, on 16.02.2005, charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said charge-sheet, the petitioners preferred this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned prosecution of the petitioners is bad in law and abuse of process of law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. He further submits that in the entire charge-sheet, vague allegations are made against the petitioners. No ingredient of Section 498-A, 34 of IPC has been disclosed in the said FIR or in the face of the final report of the prosecution that too after more than 10 years of marriage, thus, the entire challan is liable to be quashed/set aside. The allegations made in the FIR so absurd and inherently improbable as the prosecutrix was out of India on the date of incident as alleged on 18.09.2016 which shows that the entire story was cooked up by the prosecutrix just to harass the petitioners and indulge them in a malicious prosecution. The copy of outside travel ticket, visa, local flight ticket of respondent No.2 from Bombay to Raipur are collectively annexed as Annexure P/2. Respondent No.2 had in habit of making false allegations against the petitioners, she repeatedly filed such kind of false complaints before different forums of law just to harass the petitioners. The petitioner who helps the respondent No. 2 to establish a tour and travel business in her name which was operated by the respondent No.2/wife for which the petitioner had also taken loan to brought cars for her and copy of the invoice of