Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-10153-2017
(SURESH KUMAR AHIRWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
7
Jabalpur, Dated : 19-02-2018
Mr. Anil Khare, learned senior counsel along with Mr. J.S.
Hora, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Mohit Naik, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
sh Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
e Heard.
ad The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Pr Cr.P.C. for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR registered at Crime No.193/2017 at police station -
a hy Kolar Road, Bhopal for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry ad Prohibition Act.
M
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this case are that the marriage of the respondent No.2 -
of Priya Ahirwar was solemnised with the petitioner No.1 Suresh on rt 13.05.2014 at Sagar. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are mother-in-law and ou father-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner No.4 is brother-in-law and the petitioner No.5 is the sister-in-law (wife of the petitioner No.4) of C the complainant.
h
3. The respondent No.2 lodged a FIR on 31.03.2017 at ig police station - Kolar Road, Bhopal alleging that at the time of H marriage and after the engagement ceremony, the accused persons - petitioner No.s 1 to 3 have levied a condition for fixing the date of marriage that Rs.10 Lacs was demanded for purchase of a Scorpio vehicle, be given at the time of marriage. The parents of the complainant, became perplexed and somehow arranged the amount of Rs.10 Lacs and handed over to the accused persons. Two months after the marriage, the petitioners 1, 2,3 and 5 started "taunting" her for bringing less dowry and told her that with this less dowry, demand of family members could not be fulfilled. She told them that her father has given whatever he could and he is not financially sound to fulfill the demands. But the complainant was repeatedly harassed mentally and physically.
4. Her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (petitioner No.5) constantly harassing her and assaulted her. She narrated the incident to her parents. They somehow kept calm and assured her that after some days, everything will be normalised. Later, she started living with her husband at Satna where her husband was working in the forest department. There also the accused husband used to assault the complainant. He told the complainant that all his batch-mates sh have purchased houses. He wants to purchase a house at Bhopal and e for that purpose he asked the complainant to tell her father to make ad down payment of Rs.18 Lacs otherwise she will not be kept in her Pr marital home. On 15.12.2015 when her husband went to Bhopal for some official work, she also accompanied him. On the way, she was a subject to abuses and assault. She stayed at Bhopal in Room No.204 hy of Hotel- Reva. At about 11 p.m. again the accused husband made the ad demand of purchase of house and abused her and assaulted her. When M she narrated the incident to her father, her father came to the hotel and took her along with him to her parental home. Subsequently, her of husband also came to her parental house and stayed there for three days. During this period also he assaulted her.
rt
5. After one month, the petitioner No.1 came to Bhopal and ou with the assurance that she will not be ill-treated, she was taken back C to the matrimonial home. After reaching matrimonial home, she was h again treated with cruelty. Her in-laws assaulted her. She informed ig the same to her parents and relatives. She also lodged a complaint H before State Woman Commission at Bhopal. She was threatened by the petitioner No.1 and the accused persons stating that if the demand is fulfilled then only she will live happily, otherwise, she would be thrown away from the matrimonial home. She came back to her parental house because of the mental and physical cruelty subjected by the petitioners.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, detailed arguments advanced. It is contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated. FIR has been lodged without due adherence to settled principles of law. FIR contains the names of all the members of the family which is counter blast of the divorce proceeding initiated by the petitioner No.1 to wreak vengeance. The petitioners 2 to 5 are living at Tikamgarh whereas the complainant was living at Satna along with the petitioner No.1. Therefore, the petitioners 2 to 5 had hardly any occasion to live with the complainant. Therefore, no such physical and mental harassment for dowry was caused to the complainant by the petitioners 2 to 5. It is also claimed that the petitioner No.1 tried to pacify the matter and to save his marriage by approaching Family Counselling Centre, Satna in December, 2017 but all his efforts went sh into vein. The complainant along with her family matters had gone to e the extreme level, assaulted the petitioner No.1 and made him to run ad for his life. He was constrained to file an application for dissolution of Pr marriage. Bald and baseless allegations have been made against the family members. Therefore, Crime No.193/2017 be quashed.
a
7. On behalf of the respondent State, this petition has been hy opposed stating that in the statements of the witnesses including the ad complaint, every detail has been given and prima facie the petitioners M are responsible for demand of dowry and harassment to the complainant.
of
8. On behalf of the respondent No.2, it is argued that much earlier to filing of the application for divorce. The relationship rt between the complainant and the petitioner No.1 were strained. There ou was demand of dowry right from the beginning. Therefore, it cannot C be said that after filing of divorce petition, the respondent No.2 h complainant lodged the FIR. The documents which have been ig referred to by the petitioners themselves show that there has been H strained relationship between husband and wife. The application for divorce was filed much later. Prior to the same, saveral complainants were made to the police and Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Perused the record. There are specific allegations against the husband petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2-mother-in-law Savitri Bai; petitioner No.3-father-in-law and petitioner No.5- Babli Ahirwar for demand of dowry. Much of the grievance of the complainant in the FIR and subsequent complaints is against the petitioners numbers 1 to 3 and 5. However, against the petitioner No.4 no specific averment has been made and only omnibus allegations have been made. So far as divorce petition is concerned, it was filed on 10.02.2017 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. FIR has been lodged on 31.03.2017. Appearance of the complainant was marked on 06.04.2017 before ASJ whereas the FIR was lodged on 31.03.2017. Otherwise also the complainant made complaint to the police station on 13.05.2016 and before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. As regarding the report at Mahila Thana (Exhibit P-7), no opinion can be given at this stage.
10. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to make a sh roving enquiry. This Court in exercise of power under section 482 of e the Code of Criminal Procedure is not supposed to Âembark upon an ad enquiry whether the allegations in FIR and the charge-sheet are Pr reliable or not, thereupon to render definite finding about truthfulness or veracity of the allegations. These are matters which can be a examined only by the Court concerned after the entire material is hy produced before it on a thorough investigation and evidence is led.
ad Similarly it is not proper to analyse the case of the prosecution story in M the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on such premises to arrive at a conclusion of that the charges have to be quashed. Whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this stage. At this stage, the rt Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record ou with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom are taken at C their face value, disclose existence of all the ingredients constituting h the alleged offence.
ig
11. As regarding the petitioner No.4 - Mahendra Ahirwar H there is no specific allegations or role attributed to him. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in respect of the petitioner No.4. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision in the case of Dashrath P. Bundela and Others v. State of MP and Another, 2012 (1) MPHT
196.
12. Resultantly, this petition is allowed in part. FIR bearing Crime No.193/2017 dated 31.03.2017 registered at police station - Kolar Road, district- Bhopal is quashed in respect of the petitioner No.4 - Mahendra Ahirwar. It is made clear that proceeding against the other accused persons shall continue as it is.
Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLADate: 2018.02.24 15:45:24 +05'30' SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE ks e sh ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H