IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 4^th OF APRIL, 2024 MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 13457 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

1. OMPRAKASH UIKEY S/O SHRI SAMARU UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE AT PRESENT R/O HOUSE OF QURESHI, IN FRONT OF HOTEL LINE MADAN MOHAN COLONY, DEWA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAJNI UIKEY W/O SHRI SAMARU UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O SARRI SIGARPUR, BAMHANI MANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SAROJ PARASTE W/O SHRI MOHAN PARASTE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE KAKAIYA POLICE STATION BAMHANI, DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. KANTA UIKEY D/O SHRI SAMARU UIKEY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O SARRI SIGARPUR BAMHANI MANDLA DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS (BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA MANDLA, DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. LAXMI UIKEY W/O SHRI OMPRAKASH UIKEY D/O SHRI KRISHNA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS OF BUTIK R/O VILLAGE DEVDHARA, RAJEEV COLONY, DEVNAGAR, NEAR POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, MANDLA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (STATE BY SHRI K.S. BAGHEL - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

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

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

O R D E R

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"1) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of FIR in connection of Crime No.0006/2024 punishable under section 498-A & 34 of IPC & U/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is registered by police Station Mahila Thana Mandla, District Mandla, in the interest of justice.

2) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded."

2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is bad on the ground that the same was lodged after receiving notice of proceedings under Section 27 of Special Marriage Act. It is submitted that respondent No.2 appeared before the Court and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 20/12/2023. Trial Court by order dated 11/01/2024 allowed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by respondent No.2 and dismissed the suit filed by the applicant as not maintainable. Against which, First Appeal No.447/2024 is pending. It is submitted that since the FIR was lodged on 23/02/2024 i.e. after the institution of proceedings under Section 27 of Special Marriage Act, therefore the same is bad being counter-blast in nature. Furthermore, no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Police before registration of FIR and thus, the registration of FIR is bad in law. It is further submitted that the applicant No.4 is suffering from Kidney problem and Cancer, therefore her prosecution is bad in law.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

Whether the FIR was lodged by way of counter-blast?

4. So far as the contention of counsel for the applicants that since the FIR was lodged on 23/02/2024 and prior thereto a petition under Section 27 of Special Marriage Act was already instituted, therefore FIR in question is by way of counter-blast and thus liable to be quashed is concerned, the same is misconceived and is liable to be rejected.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 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