The court ruled that an FIR alleging dowry demand and cruelty cannot be quashed solely because it was filed after a divorce petition, emphasizing the need for a trial to examine the allegations.

ORDER

This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.158/2024 registered at Police Station Bhonti, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for offences under Section 498A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Applicant No.1 is the husband and applicant No.2 is father-in-law of respondent No.2.

3. Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR on 23.05.2024 alleging that she got married to applicant No.1 on 30.06.2020 in accordance with Hindu rights and rituals. Her father had given Rs.21 lacs in cash, one four-wheeler of M.G. Hector company, gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.5 Lacs, furniture of Rs.Two lacs and other house-hold articles of Rs. Seven lacs. After her marriage, she resided in village Khod along with applicants for two months and thereafter they came to Bhopal. After one month of marriage, applicants started demanding additional amount of Rs.15 lacs and were threatening that in case if she does not bring the amount then they will not keep her and started harassing her mentally on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. She resided with applicants for about two months and since their atrocities on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry continued, therefore, she came back to her parental home and since then she is residing there. Although her father and relatives tried to convince applicants but they did not mend their ways. Accordingly, FIR was lodged.

4. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that in fact FIR was lodged by way of counterblast to the petition for divorce filed by applicant No.1. It is submitted that allegations made in the FIR are general and omnibus in nature and the FIR has been lodged with a view to harass and pressurize applicants. It is submitted that in fact allegation of staying for few days in village Khod has been falsely made because applicants never stayed at village Khod. Respondent No.2 had never made any complaint to police with regard to cruelty on any earlier occasion and the FIR has been lodged after about three years of marriage. In the mediation proceedings which took place in Family Court, respondent No.2 had alleged that Rs.11 lacs were given in cash whereas in the FIR it has been stated that Rs.21 lacs were given in cash. The allegation of giving car is false because the car is in the name of uncle of respondent No.2. FIR is nothing but is a clear case of legal terrorism by respondent No.2.

5. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted that cruelty can be physical as well as mental. Respondent No.2 has been ousted from her matrimonial house, which by itself, is a cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC . Whether allegations made in the FIR are correct or not cannot be adjudicated by this Court and it can be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence of parties.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Before considering the submissions made by counsel for applicants, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference at this stage under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

In the light of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337 , State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 , Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand , reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 , Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 , State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226, M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373, CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021, Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 Teeja Devi v. St