IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE

22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7418 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

1. PUSHPENDRA GUPTA S/O MR. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING R/O HOUSE NO. E-18, NEW MINAL RESIDENCY, JK ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. MANORAMA GUPTA W/O SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O H.NO. E 18 NEW MINAL RESIDENCY, J.K. ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA S/O LATE SHANKAR LAL, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O H.NO. E 18 NEW MINAL RESIDENCY, J.K. ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS (BY SHRI MANOJ CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRAMUKH SACHIV GRAH MANTRALAYA DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH MAHILA THANA INCHARGE BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

............................................................................................................................................

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of FIR No.139/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal City for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that in fact FIR has been lodged by way of counter blast because applicant No.1 has filed a petition for divorce on 26.04.2023, whereas FIR was lodged on 29.04.2023. It is further submitted that allegations made in the FIR are false.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicants.

4. So far as the lodging of FIR by way of counter blast to the divorce petition is concerned, the question is no more res integra.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC369 has held as under:

“14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived at by the High Court while quashing the FIR, it is apparent that the High Court had relied on extraneous considerations and acted beyond the allegations made in the FIR for quashing the same in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. We have already noted the illustrations enumerated in Bhajan Lal case [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and from a careful reading of these illustrations, we are of the view that the allegations emerging from the FIR are not covered by any of the illustrations as noted hereinabove. For example, we may take up one of the findings of the High Court as noted hereinabove. The High Court has drawn an adverse inference on account of the FIR being lodged on 31-12-2001 while the appellant was forced out of the matrimonial home on 25-5-

2001.

15. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant wife for lodging the FIR on 31-12- 2001 on the ground that she had left the matrimonial home at least six months before that. This is because, in our view, the High Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant and her family members were, during this period, making all possible efforts to enter into a settlement so that Respondent 2 husband would take her back to the matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during this period, there was every possibility of not entering into any settlement with Respondent 2 husband.

16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and Respondent 2 husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a civil court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent