Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ganga Prasad Singh Baghel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2020

Author: Jagdish Prasad Gupta

Bench: Jagdish Prasad Gupta

                                      1

                                                M.Cr.C. No.6623/2017



     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
                     SEAT AT JABALPUR
 (SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P.GUPTA)


                    M.Cr.C. No. 6623/2017


               Ganga Prasad Singh Baghel and ors.
                                Vs.
                    State of M.P. and another


Shri Anurag Shivhare, Advocate for the applicant.
Mohd. Rizwan Khan, Government Advocate for the
respondent no. 1/State.
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Satish
Chand Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.



Whether approved for reporting : (Yes / No).
                            ORDER

(08.01.2020) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashment of FIR of Crime No. 515/2015 registered at police station City Kotwali, District Chhatarpur under Section 498-A and 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that marriage of respondent no. 2 Smt. Jyoti Parmar was solemnized with applicant no. 5 Praveer Singh Baghel on 24.2.2011. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are parents of applicant no. 5 Praveer Singh and applicant no. 3 Shikha Singh is sister of applicant no.

5 Praveer Singh and appellant no. 4 Surveer Singh is husband of the applicant no. 3. The respondent no. 2 lodged FIR on 9.11.2015 at police station City Kotwali, Chhatarpur, stating that after marriage when she went to the matrimonial house, the applicants tortured her with regard to demand of dowry and used abusive language with her and the applicant no. 5 was a heavy drinker. After some time applicant no. 5 forced her to ask her parents for giving share in the ancestral property and in drunken condition he abused and beaten her and also used abusive language against her family members and when she came back to her parental house, the applicant no. 5 in drunken condition in late night abused her and her parents and brother and also gave threatening to kill her family members. The aforesaid talk has been recorded and this activity had been continuing and applicant no. 5 filed a petition for divorce in which on account of compromise she went to live with the appellant no. 5. She lived six months in a rented house with the applicant no. 5 where he again started to harass her and forced her to bring money from her parents and on 27.7.2016 and 29.8.2016, the applicant no. 5 quarreled and used abusive language to her and her parents and left her alone then she went to the matrimonial house and asked the applicant nos. 1 and 2 to make arrangement for her maintenance then they also used abusive language and the applicant nos. 1, 2 and 5 thrown her out from the house, thereafter, she is residing at her parental house and the applicants have not returned her Stridhan and her belongings, accordingly, they have committed the aforesaid offence. It is also found that in connection with the aforesaid FIR, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed before CJM, Chhatarpur against all the accused persons. There is nothing on record to disclose the fact that whether the 3 M.Cr.C. No.6623/2017 cognizance has been taken or not as vide order dated 5.7.2017, this court directed to stay the operation of Crime No. 515/2015 and till then it is continued.

3. In the case, FIR has been challenged on the ground that the averments of the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence by the applicants and applicant nos. 1 and 2 resides separately and applicant nos. 3 and 4 reside at Bhopal and Pune respectively and after filing of divorce petition as a counter blast, FIR has been lodged just to take revenge and the same is malicious and the allegation in the FIR are general, there is no specific allegation against the accused persons. Hence the FIR be quashed.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has submitted that from reading of the FIR, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken up as proved, no case is made out. There are allegations against the applicant no. 5 and other accused persons for harassing the complainant in connection with demand of dowry. The allegations are true or not is a matter of trial, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed.

5. Having heard the contention of both the parties and on perusal of record, in view of this court on perusal of the FIR it cannot be said that there is no averment of commission of offence under Section 498-A, 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the husband applicant no. 5. The relevant ingredients are available in the FIR against the applicant no. 5 and even if there are no sufficient averments with regard to other applicants, the FIR cannot be quashed. At this stage, it cannot be scrutinized that against which person case is made out or against which person the case is not made 4 M.Cr.C. No.6623/2017 out. Even the accused person is unknown and there is averment of commission of cognizable offence, the FIR shall be recorded and it cannot be challenged on the ground that there is no sufficient allegation against some person mentioned in the FIR as accused. Such type of scrutiny can be done after completion of the investigation or filing of charge sheet.

6. In this case, the charge sheet has been filed but the charge sheet has not been challenged in this petition. Only prayer is for quashment of FIR, therefore, charge sheet cannot be considered. It cannot be said that the FIR was lodged as counter blast of divorce petition as in the FIR it is stated that after filing of the divorce petition, there was possibility of compromise and the respondent/wife remained sometime with the applicant no. 5 and during that period also applicant no. 5 harassed the respondent no. 2 in connection with demand of dowry, therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR has been lodged just to take revenge or maliciously.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in view of this court, this petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit, hence it is dismissed with liberty that if on the basis of charge sheet, cognizance is taken, against the applicants, they can challenge the order of the cognizance as well as the charge sheet if need arise.

(J.P. GUPTA) JUDGE VKV/-