ORDER

This order shall govern the disposal of MCRC No.52308/2022 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) and MCRC No.3363/2023 (Prateek Tripathi and others Vs. Vidhi Rawal) as both these petitions arise out of the same MJCR No.215/2022.

2.The petitioners have preferred both these separate petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceeding of MJCR No.215/2022 filed by the respondent under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “DV Act”), which is pending before the JMFC, Dewas.

3.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Prateek Tripathi was married with the respondent Vidhi Rawal on 12.12.2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Dewas. Out of their wedlock no child has been born. On 7.1.2022 respondent lodged an FIR at P.S. Mahila Thana, Dewas by stating that Vivekanand Tiwari and Shaurabh Tiwari are her father-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively and Mira Tiwari is her mother-in-law. After few days of her marriage she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by her husband on account of non fulfilment of his demand of dowry. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law tortured her by taunting regarding the demand of dowry. Then she went to Johannesburg (South Africa) for doing her job. When she returned, then accused persons again tortured her for demand of dowry of Rs.20 Lakh cash and SUV top model car. Accordingly offence has been registered against the petitioners. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has lodged a false, fabricated, omnibus and baseless FIR against the petitioners. After receiving notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. petitioners have filed a detailed representation dated 23.2.2022 before the investigating officer. To counterblast the said representation, respondent has malafidely filed MJCR bearing No.215/2022 on 2.3.2022 against the petitioners before the JMFC/7th Civil Judge Class-<br/>

2, Dewas. It is an abuse of provisions of DV Act. Only false, vague and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. There is no legal evidence to connect them with the aforesaid allegations and there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against them under the said Act. Notice has been issued against them. Hence, he prays for quashment of proceedings of MJCR No.215/2022 dated 2.3.2022 and all other consequential proceedings. He has also placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [(2012) 13 SCC 614], in the case of Almuddin Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2016 SCC OnLine MP 8732] and in the case of Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs. Prachi [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1607] .

5.Per contra, learned counsel for respondent opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that there is ample evidence available on record against the petitioners. Respondent was subjected to cruelty in respect of demand of dowry. Prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Charges have been framed against the petitioners which was not challenged by the petitioners, therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774 .

6.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7.So far as the first objection regarding the maintainability of this petition raised by the respondent is concerned, although the trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners and the order of framing of charge was not challenged by the petitioners by filing any criminal revision, but the Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others reported in (1983) 1 S