Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ajit Lalchand Thadhani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                            1            M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 7th OF MARCH, 2024
           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36197 of 2021
BETWEEN:-

1.   AJIT LALCHAND THADHANI, S/O
     LATE LALCHAND THADHANI, AGED
     ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O- 18, SKYLARK,
     ANGELORE    SOCIETY,       PESTAM
     SAGAR, CHEMBUR , MUMBAI PIN:
     400089            MAHARASHTRA
     (MAHARASHTRA)



2.   SMT. DURU AJIT THADHANI W/O AJIT
     LALCHAND THADHANI, AGED ABOUT
     74      YEARS,      OCCUPATION:
     HOUSEWIFE, R/O- 18, SKYLARK,
     ANGELORE      SOCIETY,  PESTAM
     SAGAR, CHEMBUR , MUMBAI PIN:
     400089             MAHARASHTRA
     (MAHARASHTRA)



3.   SUNIL @ SANDEEP AJIT THADHANI
     S/O AJIT LALCHAND THADHANI,
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O- 18,
     SKYLARK,    ANGELORE   SOCIETY,
     PESTAM SAGAR, CHEMBUR , MUMBAI
     PIN:    400089    MAHARASHTRA
     (MAHARASHTRA)



4.   NIKHIL AJIT THADHANI S/O AJIT
     LALCHAND THADHANI, AGED ABOUT
     37 YEARS, R/O- 18, SKYLARK,
     ANGELORE    SOCIETY,   PESTAM
     SAGAR, CHEMBUR , MUMBAI PIN:
     400089           MAHARASHTRA
     (MAHARASHTRA)


                                             .....APPLICANTS
                                               2                            M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021


(BY SHRI AKBAR HUSSAIN USMANI- ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THR.   P.S. KOTWALI SHAHDOL,
       DISTRICT    SHAHDOL  (MADHYA
       PRADESH)



2.     SMT.MANJU AMIT THADHANI W/O
       AMIT   AJIT    THADHANI    D/O
       LALCHAND THARWANI, AGED ABOUT
       42 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 25,
       DHARBHANGA CHOWK, SHAHDOL
       ADJACENT    TO   THE    HOUSE
       MOHANLAL AJUJA, POST SHAHDOL
       PS SHAHDOL, SOHAGPUR, DISTRICT
       SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DILIP PARIHAR- PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed

the following:

                                                  ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 716/2019 registered for offence under Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The applicant No. 1 is the father-in-law, applicant No. 2 is the mother-in-law and applicant Nos. 3 and 4 are the younger brothers-in- law (Dever) of respondent No. 2.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is that respondent No. 2 lodged a report on 16.10.2019 on the allegations that she got married to Amit Thadani on 20.01.2016. For 20 to 25 days, she was kept properly by the 3 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 applicants and her husband. Thereafter, the mother-in-law Smt. Duru Thadani stated passing taunts that she has brought less dowry. When respondent No. 2 replied that her father has already given sufficient dowry as per his capacity, then her mouth was gagged by her. Thereafter her parents-in-law as well as the younger brothers-in-law started passing taunts regarding bringing less dowry and also used to beat her. She gave an information of this incident to her brother Vijay Prakash Tharwani and started serving in Gurukul School. In spite of that the torture of her husband and mother-in-law and father-in-law continued and they started insisting that they want to purchase a flat and for that she must bring money from her father and they also wanted Rs.5,000/- per month from the account of her father. When she refused to do so, then her husband as well as parents-in-law by putting undue pressure on her withdrew an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for her account through cheque. In spite of that her husband and parents-in-law were threatening her to turn out of her matrimonial house. When she narrated this incident to her brother Vijay Prakash on phone, then her brother Vijay Prakash and cousin brother Hansraj Thakrani came and tried to convince her father-in-law, mother- in-law and husband and brought her to Shahdol on 11.11.2018 and from then she is residing with her brother and in the meanwhile her husband is continuously abusing her.

4. The statement of respondent No. 2 was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which it is mentioned that after marriage, she was kept properly for 1-2 months and from thereafter her mother-in-law started passing taunts on the ground of bringing less dowry. Her father- in-law also started abusing her. In the month of March, 2017, her husband got service in Malasiya and she was also ready to go to Malasiya, whereas; her husband was already there. Then her father-in-

law by harassing her continuously compelled her to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from her account. One month, thereafter, her husband lost his service and, therefore, they came back. Then Sandeep Thadani (applicant No. 3) and her parents-in-law (applicant Nos. 1 and 2) are started abusing her and harassing her. On account of continuous cruelty, they took a house on rent in Mulund. Her husband had no job and she was earning by taking tuition classes. Thereafter, she resided in Chenai along with her husband from October 2017 till December, 2017. On 03.01.2017, when she came back to Mumbai, then her husband Amit Thadani, mother-in-law Duru Thadani, father-in-law Ajit Thadani and her younger brothers-in-law Sandeep and Nikhil again started pressuring her to bring money for purchasing flat in Mumbai. In the meanwhile, her mother-in-law had also burnt her hand. The applicant No. 4-Nikhil Thadani used to remove his cloths in front of her and was also insulting her on every issue. Her belongings were kept out of the room and all source of pressures were being put on her to bring dowry. It was being insisted that since they do not have house, therefore, she should bring money from her parents for purchasing flat. Her mother-in-law used to say that her brother has given a house to his daughter in dowry, therefore, she should also bring. Thereafter, from June 2018 till November 2018 she resided along with her husband at Pune and was doing some work but the atrocities, harassment and cruelty of her in- laws continued. Thereafter, on 11.11.2018, she came to her parental home to give examination and thereafter her in-laws have stopped picking a phone. Her parents went to her matrimonial house on 01.07.2019 for compromise but they took back the jewelry which was given by them in marriage and refused to talk to them and by insulting them turn them out of their house. Accordingly, it was mentioned that 5 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 although she had made lots of efforts to save her marital life but the things did not improve.

5. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that it is well established principle of law that for implication of near and dear relatives of husband of the complainant, vague, general and omnibus allegations would not serve the purpose and the allegations must be specific. If the FIR is considered, then it is clear that there were no allegations against applicants No. 3 and 4, whereas; the allegations which were made against the applicants No. 1 and 2 are general, omnibus and vague in nature.

6. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that FIR is not an encyclopedia and the statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. specifically points out the specific allegations made against each of the applicant. There are serious allegations against applicant No.4 that he is in habit of taking off his clothes in front of respondent No.2, whereas there are specific allegations against applicant No.3 that he was also making demand of money for purchasing Flat in Mumbai and because of non-fulfillment of the said demand, he was also torturing and treating her with cruelty. So far as the applicants No.1 and 2 are concerned, there are specific allegations that not only they were making demand but applicant No.2 had also burnt the hand of respondent No.2, whereas applicant No.1 forcibly compelled respondent No.2 to withdraw an amount of Rs.3 Lakh from her account.

7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

8. This Court has already reproduced the FIR as well as statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

9. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to mention that merely because certain allegations were not made against applicants No.3 and 4 in the FIR would not be sufficient to discard the case. It is well established principle of law FIR is not an encyclopedia and each and every minute detail is not required to be mentioned therein.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1 has held as under :

"57. As far as the argument that the FIR does not contain the names of all the accused persons is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that it is settled law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of facts and it is not expected from a victim to give details of the incident either in the FIR or in the brief history given to the doctors. FIR is not an encyclopaedia which is expected to contain all the details of the prosecution case; it may be sufficient if the broad facts of the prosecution case alone appear. If any overt act is attributed to a particular accused among the assailants, it must be given greater assurance. In this context, reference to certain authorities would be fruitful.

58. In Rattan Singh v. State of H.P. [Rattan Singh v. State of H.P., (1997) 4 SCC 161 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 525] , the Court, while repelling the submission for accepting the view of the trial court took note of the fact that there had been omission of the details and observed that the criminal courts should not be fastidious with mere omissions in the first information statement since such statements can neither be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened nor expected to contain an exhaustive catalogue of the events which took place. The person who furnishes the first information to the authorities 7 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 might be fresh with the facts but he need not necessarily have the skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire story without anything missing therefrom. Some may miss even important details in a narration. Quite often, the police officer, who takes down the first information, would record what the informant conveys to him without resorting to any elicitatory exercise. It is voluntary narrative of the informant without interrogation which usually goes into such statement and hence, any omission therein has to be considered along with the other evidence to determine whether the fact so omitted never happened at all. The Court also referred to the principles stated in Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. [Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P., (1975) 4 SCC 153 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 427] , Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [Sone Lal v. State of U.P., (1978) 4 SCC 302 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 587] and Gurnam Kaur v. Bakshish Singh [Gurnam Kaur v. Bakshish Singh, 1980 Supp SCC 567 :

1981 SCC (Cri) 496] .

59. In State of U.P. v. Naresh [State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216] , reiterating the principle, the Court opined that it is settled legal proposition that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the entire case. It may not and need not contain all the details. Naming of the accused therein may be important but not naming of the accused in FIR may not be a ground to doubt the contents thereof in case the statement of the witness is found to be trustworthy. The court has to determine after examining the entire factual scenario whether a person has participated in the crime or has been falsely implicated. The informant fully acquainted with the facts may lack necessary skill or ability to reproduce details of the entire incident without anything missing from the same. Some people may miss even the most important details in narration. Therefore, in case the informant fails to name a particular accused in 8 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 the FIR, this ground alone cannot tilt the balance of the case in favour of the accused. For the aforesaid purpose reliance was placed upon Rotash v. State of Rajasthan [Rotash v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 12 SCC 64 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 382] and Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. [Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P., (2011) 4 SCC 336 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 227].

60. In Rotash [Rotash v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 12 SCC 64 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 382] this Court while dealing with the omission of naming an accused in the FIR opined that : (SCC p. 68, para 14) "14. ... We, however, although did not intend to ignore the importance of naming of an accused in the first information report, but herein we have seen that he had been named in the earliest possible opportunity. Even assuming that PW 1 did not name him in the first information report, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of Mooli Devi, PW 6. The question is as to whether a person was implicated by way of an afterthought or not must be judged having regard to the entire factual scenario obtaining in the case. PW 6 received as many as four injuries."

61. While dealing with a similar issue in Animireddy Venkata Ramana v. Public Prosecutor [Animireddy Venkata Ramana v. Public Prosecutor, (2008) 5 SCC 368 :

(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 600] , the Court held as under

: (SCC p. 375, para 13) "13. ... While considering the effect of some omissions in the first information report on the part of the informant, a court cannot fail to take into consideration the probable physical and mental condition of the first informant.

One of the important factors which may weigh with the court is as to whether there was a possibility of false implication of the appellants. Only with a view to test the veracity of the correctness of the contents of the report, the court applies certain well-known principles of caution."

Thus, apart from other aspects what is required to be scrutinised is that there is no attempt for false implication, application of principle of caution and evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses as regards their trustworthiness.

62. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are not disposed to accept the contention that omission in the first statement of the informant is fatal to the case. We are disposed to think so, for the omission has to be considered in the backdrop of the entire factual scenario, the materials brought on record and objective weighing of the circumstances. The impact of the omission, as is discernible from the authorities, has to be adjudged in the totality of the circumstances and the veracity of the evidence. The involvement of the accused persons cannot be determined solely on the basis of what has been mentioned in the FIR."

11. Thus, it is clear that non-mentioning of certain allegations in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. Furthermore, it is well established principle of law that if uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence, only then this Court can quash the proceedings.

12. Before considering the allegations made in the complaint, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat 10 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337 has held as under :

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned order and other material placed on record, we are of the view that the High Court exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 CrPC, and quashed the proceedings. Even before the investigation is completed by the investigating agency, the High Court entertained the writ petition, and by virtue of interim order granted by the High Court, further investigation was stalled. Having regard to the allegations made by the appellant/informant, whether the 2nd respondent by clicking inappropriate pictures of the appellant has blackmailed her or not, and further the 2nd respondent has continued to interfere by calling Shoukin Malik or not are the matters for investigation. In view of the serious allegations made in the complaint, we are of the view that the High Court should not have made a roving inquiry while considering the application filed under Section 482 CrPC. Though the learned counsel have made elaborate submissions on various contentious issues, as we are of the view that any observation or findings by this Court, will affect the investigation and trial, we refrain from recording any findings on such issues. From a perusal of the order of the High Court, it is evident that the High Court has got carried away by the agreement/settlement arrived at, between the parties, and recorded a finding that the physical relationship of the appellant with the 2nd respondent was consensual. When it is the allegation of the appellant, that such document itself is obtained under threat and coercion, it is a matter to be investigated. Further, the complaint of the appellant about interference by the 2nd respondent by calling Shoukin Malik and further interference is also a matter for investigation. By looking at the contents of the complaint and the serious allegations made against 2nd respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has committed error in quashing the proceedings.

(Underline supplied) 11 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021

14. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 has held as under:-

"7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court at a stage when the investigation was yet to be completed, is completely incorrect and uncalled for ..........."

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 has held as under :

12. The counsel appearing for the appellant also drew our attention to the same decision which is relied upon in the impugned judgment by the High Court i.e. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. In the said decision, this Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any specific guidelines or watertight compartment as to when the power under Section 482 CrPC could be or is to be exercised. This Court, however, gave an exhaustive list of various kinds of cases wherein such power could be exercised. In para 103 of the said judgment, this Court, however, hastened to add that as a note of caution it must be stated that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases for the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report or in the complaint and that the extraordinary or the inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.

16. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 has held as under :

5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court when approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding will not appreciate the defence of the accused; neither would it consider the veracity of the document(s) on which the accused relies. However an exception has been carved out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung v.

Essem Chemical Industries; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to the effect that in an appropriate case where the document relied upon is a public document or where veracity thereof is not disputed by the complainant, the same can be considered.

17. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :

18. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court. It is true that the Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, otherwise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without full-fledged enquiry.

19. Though the High Court may exercise its power relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should be exercised sparingly. For example, where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused or where there is express legal bar provided in any of the provisions of the Code or in any other enactment under which a criminal proceeding is initiated or sufficient material to show that the criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal 13 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 grudge, the High Court may step in.

20. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. We make it clear that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.

18. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under :

17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.

19. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 has held as under :

17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial.

The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made 14 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for."

20. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 has held that a detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 of CrPC is not permissible and should not be done. In the case of Kunwar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-

"8........At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia..........."

21. Similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in the cases of Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678, Teeja Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221, State of Orissa Vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Sangeeta Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336, Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437, M.N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682.

22. If the facts of present case are considered in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court as referred to in previous paragraphs, it is clear that there are specific allegations against applicant No.4-Nikhil that he used to remove his clothes in front of respondent No.2. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the said conduct of applicant No.4 would not amount to cruelty. Apart from that there are specific allegations against applicant No.3 with regard to demand of dowry for purchasing Flat as well as abusing respondent No.2 on account of non- bringing of money. Therefore, it is clear that there are specific allegations against applicant No.3 also.

23. So far as applicants No.1 and 2 are concerned, there are specific allegations that they were passing taunts that respondent No.2 has not brought sufficient dowry. They were harassing her mentally as well as physically. They were constantly demanding money for purchasing Flat in Mumbai. Applicant No.1 had forcibly withdrawn an amount of Rs.3 Lakh from the account of respondent No.2, whereas applicant No.2 had also burnt the hand of respondent No.2.

24. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held as under:

"12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. [Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551], it was observed (SCC p. 553, paras 8-9):

"8. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, 16 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935 : (2000) 3 SCR 662] it was observed (SCC p. 217, para 5):

"5. ... A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."

The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in the absence of any specific role and material to support such role.

9. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made to K.Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar [K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 547 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 27] , Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604] and Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. [Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P., (2011) 11 SCC 259 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 159] "

13. In the present case, the complaint is as follows:

"Sir, it is submitted that I was married on 18-11- 2009 with Sidharath Parakh s/o Manak Chand Parakh 17 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 r/o Sarafa Bazar in front of Radha Krishna Market, Gwalior according to the Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage my father had given gold and silver ornaments, cash amount and household goods according to his capacity. After the marriage when I went to my matrimonial home, I was treated nicely by the members of the family. When on the second occasion I went to my matrimonial home, my husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing me for not bringing the dowry and started saying that I should bring from my father 25-30 tolas of gold and Rs 2,00,000 in cash and only then they would keep me in the house otherwise not. On account of this my husband also used to beat me and my father-in-law and my mother-in-law used to torture me by giving the taunts. In this connection I used to tell my father Kundanmal Oswal, my mother Smt Prem Lata Oswal, uncle Ashok Rai Sharma and uncle Ved Prakash Mishra from time to time. On 2-4- 2010 the members of the family of my matrimonial home forcibly sent me to the house of my parents in Ganj Basoda along with my brother Deepak. They snatched my clothes and ornaments and kept with them. Since then till today my husband has been harassing me on the telephone and has not come to take me back. Being compelled, I have been moving this application before you. Sir, it is prayed that action be taken against husband Sidharath Parakh, my father-in-law Manak Chand Parakh and my mother- in-law Smt Indira Parakh for torturing me on account of demanding dowry.

14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made out. There are allegations against Respondent 2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it 18 M.Cr.C. No. 36197/2021 cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.

25. Even if the allegations made against the applicants are considered in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of Monju Roy Vs. State of W.B., reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693 and Chandralekha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155, still this Court is of considered opinion that there are specific allegations against all the applicants and accordingly, FIR as well as charge-sheet filed against them and the consequential prosecution of them for offence under Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be quashed.

26. Accordingly, application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AL Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2024.03.20 15:06:18 +05'30'