Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2017
M.Cr.C. No. 11808/2017
5
Jabalpur, Dated: 13/12/2017
Shri Atulanand Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned G.A for the respondent
No. /State.
Shri S.N. Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Heard.
The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashment of F.I.R at Crime No. 260/2017 registered at Police Station Damoh Dehat, for offence under Sections 498 A, 323 of I.P.C read with Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The factual matrix as appeared from the F.I.R is that the complainant/respondent No. 2 lodged F.IR at Damoh Dehat, stating that she is the resident of Motinagar, Sagar. She got married to petitioner on 11.06.2015 who is serving as a medical representative. Due to their wedlock, a son is born. Now he is fourteen months old. Her maternal home is at Shrivastava Colony, Damoh. During her marriage, sufficient dowry was given by her parents. After two months of her marriage, the petitioner/accused demanded more dowry. She informed the same to her parents. But as they are not capable to fulfill the demand, they could not give more dowry. Because of the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the petitioner, she was mentally and physically tortured for demand of dowry. She left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents at Damoh.
3. On 23.05.2017 at about 5 pm, the petitioner came to Shrivastava Colony, Damoh and not only she was assaulted but he tried to strangulate her. She was also slapped thrice by the petitioner/accused. He also tried to take away the child from her. He told her that he will not keep her. On the following day, she lodged the report. On this report, she was medically examined. The statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and the charge sheet has been filed, against the petitioner.
4. The petitioner assailed the F.I.R on the grounds that the complainant/respondent No. 2 has lodged the report with a concocted story. The petitioner/accused did not visit Damoh nor he did any crime. Only to get the petitioner involved in the crime, the visit of Damoh has been falsely mentioned in the F.I.R.
5. Learned G.A for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the statement of the witnesses specially the complainant- Ekta Pandey, mother Manisha, father Ratanchand, neighbour Manoj have stated that the petitioner/accused had gone to Damoh on 23.05.2017 and committed the crime.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also opposed the contentions and submits that offence has been committed by the petitioner at Damoh. Therefore, the F.I.R lodged at Damoh Dehat is proper and there is nothing to discard the same.
7. On behalf of the petitioner it is stated that the petitioner was present at Sagar and did not go to Damoh on the date alleged, therefore, the F.I.R is liable to be set aside. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Geeta Mehrotra And Another Vs. State of U.P. And Another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has described the circumstances with regard to roping in all the members of the husband.
8. At the stage of framing of charge, the contents of the F.I.R and the statement of the witnesses ought to be seen. It is to be seen that prima facie case is made out. In the case of C.B.I Vs. K.M. Sharan, (2008) 4 SCC 471 wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not called upon to embark upon the inquiry whether the allegations in the F.I.R and the charge sheet are reliable or not and thereupon to render definite finding about truthfulness or veracity of the allegations. These are the matters which can be examined only by the Court concerned after the entire material is produced before it on a thorough investigation and evidence is led.
9. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
10. That being so, it would not be appropriate at this stage to quash the F.I.R. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Kumar Palo) JUDGE awinash/ Digitally signed by AWINASH CHANDRA Date: 2017.12.16 13:00:08 +05'30'