Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2015
M.Cr.C. No.10342/2015
20.08.2015
Shri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission.
The applicants have moved present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the registration of Crime No.284/2015 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Sehore for offence under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The facts of the case, in short, are that the complainant is the wife of the applicant No.3 Satyam Rathore and daughter-in-law of the applicants No.1 and 2. Marriage of the complainant and the applicant No.3 took place on 20.5.2013. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the parties. The applicant No.3 has moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 14.7.2014 and also lodged a criminal complaint for offence under Section 417 of the Cr.P.C. which is registered on 30.3.2015. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged FIR at Police Station, Kotwali, Sehore.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the applicant No.3 has taken a contradictory plea before various courts as stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that marriage of the applicant No.3 was done due to cheating. It was said that the complainant sustained injuries on her leg whereas she was suffering from polio and therefore a complaint of cheating was lodged. Simultaneously, he has moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to get the relief of restitution of conjugal right. On the one hand, the applicant No.3 does not want to reside with the complainant because she was suffering from polio and alleged that cheating was done in marriage whereas the patient of polio could be located on her walking etc. and; therefore, there was no need to inform about the disease to the applicant No.3 and if the marriage of the applicant No.3 took place by cheating then why he is interested to take his wife back in his house. The registration of crime cannot be discarded only because the husband has moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The wife cannot be expected to break her marriage on her own. She is expected to lodge an FIR when there is no recourse remained with the wife to save her marriage and therefore she had lodged an FIR after filing of the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and on lodging the criminal complaint for offence under Section 417 of the IPC, it cannot be said that her testimony cannot be believable. At this stage, testimony of the complainant cannot be discarded. It is not a good case to quash the crime registered against the applicants.
Consequently, the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.c. filed by the applicants is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge YS/