Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39886 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1.
PRADEEP S/O SHRI UMASHANKAR TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRESENLTY NOTHING
R/O. B 52 SUDAMA NAGAR,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
SHAKUNTALA TIWARI
W/O PRADEEP TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRESENTLY NOTHING
R/O. B-52 SUDAMA NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
PRIYA @ CHINKI
W/O SHIKHAR SHUKLA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
R/O. 1/2 RASMANDAL DUTT GALI
DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI LOKESH MEHTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
P.S.- ANNAPURNA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
SUMAN SHANKAR DIXIT
S/O SHARDA SHANKAR DIXIT
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/O. KISHANGANJ SQUARE,
TEH. POHARI, DIST. SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SAMEER VERMA - PANEL LAWYER)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39913 of 2023
1
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 13-12-
2023 16:07:37
Signature Not Verified
BETWEEN:-
1.
ABHAY @ NIKKI TIWARI
S/O TRIBHUVAN TIWARI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE
R/O. A-4 PALASH PARISAR,
106 RAU INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
RASHMI @ TINA BAJPAI
W/O SHRI ATUL BAJPAI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
R/O. 460/25 NANDA NAGAR,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI LOKESH MEHTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION BANK NOTE PRESS
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
SHRI SUMAN SHANKAR DIXIT
S/O SHARDA SHANKAR DIXIT
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/O. KISHANGANJ SQUARE,
TEH. POHARI, DIST. SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SAMEER VERMA - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on: 04.12.2023
Delivered on: 12.12.2023
These applications having been heard and reserved for order and the
Court pronounced this day following:
Lokesh Mehta,Advocate General
Quashing of FIR for dowry death not justified without specific allegations against petitioners, as FIR disclosed prima facie offence and prosecution was not an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
DOWRY DEATH - QUASHING OF FIR - SECTION 482 OF CRPC - [FACTS: FIR registered against applicants for dowry death of deceased. Applicants, being relatives of deceased's husband, alleged to have harassed her for dowry. Petitioners sought quashing of FIR, arguing lack of specific allegations against them.] [FINDING OF THE COURT: Court held that FIR disclosed prima facie offence of dowry death. Specific allegations not required at this stage. Quashing of FIR not justified as it would stifle legitimate prosecution.] [ISSUES: Whether FIR should be quashed for lack of specific allegations against petitioners. Whether prosecution for dowry death was an abuse of process of law.] [RATIO DECIDENDI: Court relied on precedents holding that quashing of FIR is an exception and should be exercised sparingly. Court found that allegations in FIR, supported by statements under Section 161 CrPC, made out a prima facie case of dowry death. Court also noted that investigation into cognizable offences is a statutory power of police and interference by court is not justified without legitimate reasons.] [FINAL DECISION: Petitions dismissed. FIR not quashed.]
Fact of the Case:
FIR registered against applicants for dowry death of deceased. Applicants, being relatives of deceased's husband, alleged to have harassed her for dowry. Petitioners sought quashing of FIR, arguing lack of specific allegations against them.
Finding of the Court:
Court held that FIR disclosed prima facie offence of dowry death. Specific allegations not required at this stage. Quashing of FIR not justified as it would stifle legitimate prosecution.
Issues: Whether FIR should be quashed for lack of specific allegations against petitioners.Whether prosecution for dowry death was an abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: Court relied on precedents holding that quashing of FIR is an exception and should be exercised sparingly.Court found that allegations in FIR, supported by statements under Section 161 CrPC, made out a prima facie case of dowry death.Court also noted that investigation into cognizable offences is a statutory power of police and interference by court is not justified without legitimate reasons.
Final Decision: Petitions dismissed.FIR not quashed.
This order shall govern the disposal of these miscellaneous criminal cases
as they have arisen out of the same crime number of the same police station,
hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2
2. These petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short 'The Code'), has been preferred for quashment of F.I.R bearing
crime No.230/2023, registered at police station – Annapurnan, District – Indore,
against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34
of IPC, 1860 and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the charge-sheet
and the consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4739/2019 pending
before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts relevant to the case are that on 05.05.2023 a merg
report regarding the death of deceased Indu Tiwari was registered at Police
Station Annapurna on the basis of a short postmortem report received from
District Hospital, Indore. In the postmortem report doctor has opined that the
deceased committed suicide by hanging herself on 04.05.2023. It is alleged that
the marriage of the deceased was solemnised with Gaurav Tiwari on
09.12.2013. Applicant Pradeep is father-in-law's brother (chacha sasur),
applicant Shakuntala Tiwari is Aunt-in-law (chachi saas), applicant Priya @
Chinki and Rashmi @ Tina are sisters-in-law (nanand) and applicant - Abhay is
the son of Aunt-in-law (bhua saas) of the deceased. Further allegation against
the applicants are that they used to physically and mentally torture the deceased
by assaulting and threatening her for not fulfilling their demand of dowry. On
the basis of which, FIR bearing crime No.230/2023 was registered against the
applicants for offence under Sections 304-B,498-A/34 of IPC, 1860 and
Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On completion of investigation in
the present crime number, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore against the applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants being
aunt-in-law (chachi saas & Bhua saas), sister-in-laws (Nanand), brother of
3
father-in-law (chacha sasur) are residing separately and they do not meet the
deceased on daily basis. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that
there is no specific instance against the applicants regarding demand of dowry
and harassment. Only general and omnibus allegations has been made against
them. They have been roped in the case only on the ground of being close
relative of Gaurav Tiwari, the husband of the deceased. Even if the allegations
of prosecution are taken to be true at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the applicants. It is further submitted that the present case is a glaring
example of growing tendency in the society to falsely implicate the close
relatives of the husband. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the
applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
passed in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v State of Bihar,
(2022) 6 SCC 599, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr
reported as 2012(10) ADJ 464 and judgment passed in the case of Mirza
Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (SLP [Crl.]
No.2786/2019).
Under these circumstances learned counsel prays for
quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No.230/2023 registered against the
applicants and all consequential proceedings.
5. These petitions have been taken up for hearing at the initial stage and
no notice has been served upon the respondent/complainant.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State submitted that the
prosecution case is well supported by FIR as well as the statement of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In addition to that it is also contended
on behalf of the prosecution that for want of evidence if the proceedings against
4
these applicants are quashed then the question shall arise as to why the
proceedings of t
