ORDER

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed for quashment of the FIR No.445/2019 dated 19.10.2019, registered at Police Station Jamodi, District Sidhi and consequent criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR for commission of offence under Section 294 and 506 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, in short, is that one Anil Kumar Sharma, resident of Dakshin Karondiya, Sidhi appeared at P.S. Jamodi and lodged FIR stating that he runs Lucky Grocery store at New Bus Stand main road, Sidhi. His co brother daughter’s marriage was solemnized with Vinod Tiwari, resident of Village Mohaniya in the year 2010. Vinod deserted her in 2011. It was alleged that on 19.10.2019, at around 12:30 PM when he was on his shop Vinod came and asked that his wife has deserted him due to him. He told him that it is his family matter. Vinod abused him uttering filthy words related to mother and sister and threatened to eliminate him. Matter was witnessed by Himanshu Jaiswal and Sujit Jaiswal, residents of Dakshin Karondiya. Prior to this incident, on 03.10.2019 too he had created a scene with him. 3. On the basis of aforesaid, FIR was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 294 and 506 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of offence under Section 294 and 506 of IPC before the Court of JMFC, Sidhi.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that a false and manufactured FIR was made against the petitioner. It is submitted that allegations leveled in the FIR are omnibus and general in nature and even if the entire allegations are taken in its entirety, even then the necessary ingredients of Section 294 and 506 of IPC are clearly missing. It is submitted that applicant is relative of the complainant as he is not having good relations with his wife and matrimonial dispute exist between them, complainant who is Mausa of his wife often files false complaint against him with a view to harass and torture him. It is further submitted that no such incident as alleged in the FIR ever took place. As such a false, fabricated and manufactured FIR has been maliciously lodged.

5. It is contended that learned JMFC, without examining the allegations made and taking into consideration that necessary ingredients for commission of offence under Section 294 and 506 of IPC are missing, framed charges against him for commission of offence which is improper.

Thus, he has prayed for quashment of the FIR and the charge sheet.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner relating to his false implication cannot be taken into account at this stage and same can be taken care of by the trial Court at appropriate stage. It is contended that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed and charges have been framed for commission of offence under Section 294 and 506 of IPC. It is further contended that use of the obscene language and derogatory remark at shop of the applicant makes petitioner’s offence punishable under the aforesaid sections. Therefore, trial Court was justified in framing the charges. He submitted that the contents of the FIR are corroborated by the statement of two witnesses who were present on the spot at the time of incident. Thus basic ingredients of the offence are available and there was no illegality in proceeding with the criminal case.

Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswamy and Others, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 699 has held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or t