Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 25 November, 2016
1 M.Cr.C. No.5617/2015
(Arvind Singh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.)
25.11.2016
Shri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri G.S. Chauhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Shiv Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant.
With consent, heard finally.
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482/483 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order of cognizance taken by the Additional Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior in private complaint preferred by the respondent No.2, wherein complaint for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 506-B and 498-A of IPC have been preferred.
The allegations of the respondent No.2/complainant in the private complaint against the present petitioner is that he demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 and has committed an act attributable to him to implicate him for the offence under Sections 323, 506-B and 498-A of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the complaint and statements made under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate by the complainant (respondent No.2) reveals that only omnibus allegation has been made against the present petitioner and no specific act has been explained so as to fasten the liability and implicate the petitioner for the offence so mentioned. He further submits that even the statement of her mother under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. also suggests that the petitioner has no role to play in respect of the allegations 2 M.Cr.C. No.5617/2015 (Arvind Singh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.) levelled against him. The petitioner has further relied upon the certificate issued by the Company Commander Special Battalion, V.S. Bal Camp, Madhya Pradesh Bhawan, New Delhi. A certificate has been granted in respect of the period between 1.1.2013 to 31.12.2013 being spent by the petitioner on duty at New Delhi. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not available to demand the dowry. He further submits that cognizance has been taken without considering the said aspect in the matter and the petitioner has been called upon in a slipshod manner. He further submits that he is uncle of complainant's husband and lives separately in a different house and is a distant relative and therefore, he has become a victim of the tendency wherein all relatives of the husband are arrayed or implicated by the other side being guided for wrecking vengeance. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and submits that the petitioner being distant relative and living separately in a different house, cannot be subjected to such consequences. The dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court is very clear in this regard.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant also opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the complaint includes the name of the petitioner in the body of the complaint and therefore, rightly cognizance has 3 M.Cr.C. No.5617/2015 (Arvind Singh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.) been taken.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the complaint as well as the statements made by the respondent No.2/complainant and her mother under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., it reveals that no specific act or allegation has been levelled against the present petitioner. Only omnibus allegations are made. Similarly, Annexure P/3 which has been filed by the petitioner in the form of certificate showing the posting of the petitioner at the relevant point of time at New Delhi is sufficient indicator of the fact that the petitioner has been subjected to litigation being guided for wrecking vengeance and make an attempt to exert pressure.
The petitioner lives separately with his family. Most of the time he was posted at New Delhi in the year 2013. Omnibus allegations are levelled in the complaint and in the statements made by the respondent No.2. A cumulative effect of such facts does not evoke enough substance to continue prosecution of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer only on the basis of omnibus allegations as those allegations are without any substance and would not be able to reach home during the trial.
From perusal of the complaint and the statements made by the respondent No.2/complainant, no ingredients under Section 323 and 506-B of IPC are also being made out. No act can be alleged to have been committed from the perusal of the complaint and statements made by complainant and her mother.
4 M.Cr.C. No.5617/2015(Arvind Singh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.) The mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta (supra) is lucently reflective in the subject matter.
Resultantly, petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and cognizance taken against the petitioner by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Accordingly, proceedings against the present petitioner stands quashed. Trial court may proceed further with the trial in respect of other accused persons in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
(Anand Pathak)
SS Judge