Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Kumar Sadh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-47776-2020
Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr.
Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated : 10.01.2022
Shri Prabhat Pateriya, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for the State.
This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for
quashing the FIR in Crime No.117/2020 registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Gwalior as well as charge-sheet filed for
offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC read with Section
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the main
ground for quashment of criminal proceedings is plea of alibi. The
applicant No. 3 was undergoing training at Hyderabad from
01.03.2020 till 31.03.2020 and, therefore, it is clear that the
allegations of beating against the applicant No. 3 are false. It is
further submitted that similarly applicant No. 1 is a bank employee
and he was on his duty on 11.03.2020. It is further submitted that due
to lock-down, no proceedings were going on and thus, it is incorrect
to say that the applicant No. 1 did not appear for reconciliation
proceedings in spite of service of notice. It is further submitted that in
fact, no notice was received by the applicant No. 1 with regard to
reconciliation proceedings. Nothing has been argued on behalf of
applicant No. 2.
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-47776-2020
Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the
counsel for the State. It is submitted that if the FIR prima facie
discloses commission of cognizable offence, then legitimate
prosecution should not be stifled in the mid way. Respondent No. 2
has specifically alleged in her FIR as well as her statement under Section 161 of CrPC that she got married to the applicant No. 1 on 29.05.2019 and an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was spent by her father. From the second day of marriage, the applicants started scolding that her parents have not given the dowry as per the status of the applicants. Had marriage of the applicant No. 1 performed at some other place, then he would have got the dowry worth Rs.30,00,000-. It was further alleged that father of the respondent No. 2/complainant is working on the post of Assistant Teacher and he had given the household goods of good company. The applicants were demanding four wheeler vehicle and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. When the complainant informed that her father is not financially sound to fulfill their demand and the marriage of her younger sister is yet to be performed, then on this issue, the applicants started physically and mentally harassing the respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that she was beaten by them. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 informed her parents on telephone. The parents of the respondent No. 2 came to matrimonial house of respondent No. 2 and tried to convince the 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-47776-2020 Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr. applicants that as per his financial condition, he is not in a position to fulfill their demand of a car and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was alleged that after hearing reply from her father, the applicants started abusing the respondent No. 2 and her parents and turned her out from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, again father of the respondent No. 2 contacted the applicant No. 1 and, accordingly, the applicants came to the parental home of respondent No. 2, but once again, they raised the demand of one car and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was further alleged that on 11.03.2020 her husband was called for reconciliation but he did not appear even for once. It is submitted that there is nothing in the FIR to show that the respondent No. 2 was ever assaulted by the applicant No. 1 or 3 in the month of March, 2020. Thus, even if the applicant No. 3 was at Hyderabad in connection with his training, then it cannot be said that the allegations made in the FIR are false. It is further submitted that so far a plea of alibi raised by respondent No.1 on 11.03.2021 is concerned, it is a case of the respondent No. 2 herself that the applicant No. 1 did not attend reconciliation proceedings. It is further submitted that it is incorrect to say that any lock-down was imposed on 11.03.2021, whereas lock- down was imposed w.e.f. 24.03.2021.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The application is primarily based on plea of alibi. Counsel for 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-47776-2020 Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr. the applicant could not point out any allegation from the FIR or the statements of the witnesses, which may be to the effect that the respondent No. 2 was beaten by the applicant No. 3 in the month of March, 2020. On the contrary, it appears from the FIR as well as the police statement that the respondent No. 2 was already ousted from her matrimonial house much prior to March 2020. Further, on 11-3- 2020, reconciliation proceedings were to take place, but applicant no.1 did not attend. Therefore, no plea of alibi is available to the applicant no.1.
At this stage, it is submitted that since vague allegations have been made without disclosing the specific date, therefore, it is clear that the allegations of demand of Car and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as well as harassment on account of non-fulfillment of said demand are false.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants.
According to the prosecution case, respondent No. 2 got married to the applicant No. 1 on 29.05.2019. The period of limitation under Section 468 of CrPC is three years. Even three years from the date of marriage have not expired. Specific allegations are that the applicants demanded a Car as well as an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and when the respondent No. 2 expressed inability of 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-47776-2020 Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr. her father to fulfill the said demand, then she was beaten by all the applicants. Since the complaint is within the limitation, therefore, at this stage, even if specific date of a particular incident has not been disclosed, still it cannot be said that the allegations are vague.
So far as the question of alibi is concerned, it is well established principle of law that the burden heavily lies on the accused to prove the same by cogent and reliable evidence.
In absence of any allegations that any beating was given to the respondent No. 2 in the month of March, 2020, plea of alibi of the applicants No. 1 and 3, as set up by the applicants cannot be taken note of.
So far as the plea of applicant No. 2 is concerned, the applicant has not made any submission. Furthermore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of MP reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260, it is clear that the allegations made against the applicant No. 2 prima facie make out an offence warranting her prosecution.
It is well established principle of law that while exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC, this Court can quash the proceedings only if the un-controverted allegations do not make out an offence. The defence of an accused cannot be looked into at this stage.
6
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-47776-2020 Devendra Kumar Sadh and ors. Vs. State of MP and anr. Since the un-controverted allegations prima facie make out an offence, therefore, no case is made out for quashment of the prosecution.
Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.01.11 10:20:58 +05'30'