Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neelam @ Namrata vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2019
-( 1 )- M.Cr.C.50959/2018
(Neelam @ Namrata Vs.State of MP & Anr.)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50959/2018
Neelam@ Namrata ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of MP & Anr. ..... Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri K.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Dubey learned Panel lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting :
Reserved on : 15.07.2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 30th July, 2019) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR as well as entire criminal proceedings -( 2 )- M.Cr.C.50959/2018 (Neelam @ Namrata Vs.State of MP & Anr.) pending before JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind at Crime No.76/2018 registered at Police Station, Mehgaon, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506,34 of IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.03.2018 complainant lodged FIR at Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Dhawal Singh on 2.6.2017 according to Hindu customs. At the time of marriage, her parents had given cash, ornaments and other household items. After marriage her sister-in-law, present petitioner, who is daughter of sister-in-law, jeth etc. used to torture her for demand of dowry and threatened her to kill if their demand of dowry is not fulfilled. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, false FIR has been registered at Crime No.76/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506,34 of IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by the registration of crime, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. At the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was residing at her matrimonial home at New Delhi. It is further submitted that at the stage of registration of the FIR, no evidence has been shown against petitioner. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is a self respected person and never -( 3 )- M.Cr.C.50959/2018 (Neelam @ Namrata Vs.State of MP & Anr.) commit the act as alleged in the FIR and if the petitioner is prosecuted, it would ruin the credibility and entire image of the petitioner. There is no iota of evidence available on record regarding demand of dowry and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted against the petitioner. It is also submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, hence requested for quashing the FIR as well as entire consequential proceedings pending before JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind at Crime No.76/2018.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions and submitted that there is sufficient material available against the present petitioner to constitute the offence against her under the aforesaid sections, hence requested to reject the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. It is trite law that appreciation of evidence, probability of allegations made in the FIR and the defence raised by the persons accused of the offence cannot be gone into by this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC.
7. In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. -( 4 )- M.Cr.C.50959/2018
(Neelam @ Namrata Vs.State of MP & Anr.) (2012) 8 SCC 460, the Hon. Apex Court has observed as under:-
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 CrPC should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2 The court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere.
No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of CrPC or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom -( 5 )- M.Cr.C.50959/2018 (Neelam @ Namrata Vs.State of MP & Anr.) of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a civil wrong with no element of criminality and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. 27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by the prosecution. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the -( 6 )- M.Cr.C.50959/2018 (Neelam @ Namrata Vs.State of MP & Anr.) rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2)CrPC, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of CrPC or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) are to be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Court should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
8. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. CH. Bhaiyalal [AIR 1992 SC 604] that when allegations in the complaint clearly constitute cognizable offence, then quashing of FIR is not justified. Similarly, in the case of State of Orissa and another vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2006) 2 SCC 272], it has been observed that inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and that too -( 7 )- M.Cr.C.50959/2018 (Neelam @ Namrata Vs.State of MP & Anr.) in the rarest of rare cases and the High Courts should not embark upon an inquiry as to reliability of evidence to sustain the allegations, which is the function of the trial Court.
9. Truthfulness or falsehood of allegations made by the complainant in his complaint is to be established by evidence to be produced before the trial Court and only looking to the FIR it cannot be inferred that prima facie no case is made out against the present applicant. Therefore, in the case in hand, there is no question of invoking inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, looking to the offences levelled against the petitioner, I am of the view that no ground is made out for quashing the FIR. The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sans substance and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
vv Judge
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2019.08.05
VALSALA
VASUDEVAN
2018.10.26
15:14:29 -07'00'
11:22:40
-07'00'