Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pravendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2015
M. Cr. C. No.1845/2015
17/12/2015
Parties through their counsel.
The petitioners before this Court have filed this present
petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
quashment of First Information Report registered at Crime
No.267/2014, Police Station Bhind Dehat under Sections 498-A,
323/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3/4 of Prohibition of Dowry
Act.
2- The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners is that a complaint has been filed by the respondent
No.2 - Priyanka Sharma on 05/07/2014 and in the complaint she has stated that a demand of dowry to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- was made and a motorcycle was demanded. She was harassed by her in-laws and other family members and she was finally thrown out by the house of her in-laws. Hence, she is lodging the FIR. The FIR lodged in the matter reads as under:-
**Qfj;kfn;k fiz;adk 'kekZ iRuh izosUnz 'kekZ fuoklh 'kkL=h uxj ch Cykd fHk.M us ,d ys[kh; vkosnu ngst izrkM+uk ds laca/k esa is'k fd;k ftldk fooj.k fuEu gS& Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; Fkkuk nsgkr ftyk fHk.M fo"k; ifr o lkl] llqj] nsoj] ftBkuh }kjk ngst gsrq izrkfM+r djus ckcnA egksn;] fuosnu gS fd eSa fiz;adk 'kekZ ,e,] Mh,M rd f'k{kk xzgj.k dh gS esjh 'kknh 05-05-11 dks izosUnz 'kekZ iq= ';ke fcgkjh 'kekZ fuoklh 'kkL=h uxj ch Cykd ds lkFk fgUnw fjfr fjokt ls gqbZ Fkh esjs firk us lkeF;Z ds vuqlkj lkeku Vhoh] Qzh] ckflax e'khu] Mcy cSM] vyekjh] crZu] diM+k] lksus dh psu] ckyk] >qedh] vWaxwBh] psu fn;s Fks ,oa x`gLFkh pkyus ds fy;s yxqu eas 2]50]000 :i;s fn;s A esjk ifr f'k{kkfoHkkx esa lgk;d f'k{kd gS 'kknh ds 6 ekg ckn llqj ';kefcgkjh] lkl ljyk nsoh] ifr izosUnz] ftBkuh jk[kh] nscj uh:] iou ngst esa 2]00]000 :i;s uxn ,oa eksVj lk;fdy dh ekax dj eq>s 'kkjhj ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djus yxs llqjky ls vkus ds ckn eSaus esjs lkFk gqbZ ?kVuk viuh eEeh ljkst nsoh] firk f'konRr] HkkbZ jfo dks crkbZ mlds ckn esjs ek;ds okyks us lekt ds izfrf"Br O;fDr;ksa dh iapk;r cqykbZ ftlesa jkenqykjs 'kekZ cdhy] larks"k Fkkid] eqUuk 'kekZ] gjsUnz 'kekZ vkfn Fks iapk;r djkus ds ckn llqjky okys lHkh yksxks us ;g dkg fd vc ngst ugh ekaxsxs ,oa ijs'kku ugh djsaxs A rc esjs ifr eq>s llqjky ys x;s tgkWa Qjojh 2013 ls vxLr 2013 rd yxkrkj llqjky esa jgh dqN fnu ckn blh chp esa eq>s llqjkyhtu rjg&rjg ls ijs'kku djus yxs ckr&ckr ij ekjihV djrs fnu esa ,d ckj Hkkstu nsrs esjs ekrk firk HkkbZ ls ckr ugh djus nsrs vkSj esjs ifjtu fj'rsnkjks dks ?kj ugh vkus nsrs eq>ls feyus ugh nsrs Fks vxLr 2013 esjh lkl] llqj] ftBkuh] ifr o nscjks us feydj ekjihV dh blds mijkUr eSaus ekSdk ns[kdj lkl ds j[kus Qksu ls HkS;k jfo dks ekjihV izrk+M+uk dh ?kVuk crkbZ HkkbZ eq>s ns[kus vk;k rks mlds lkFk Hkh cnlywdh dh vkSj eq>s /kDdk nsdj mlds lkFk Hkst fn;k A rHkh ls yxkrkj eSa firk ds ?kj ij jg jgh gWwa bl chp eSa esjs ifjtuksa esa yxkrkj esjs llqjky i{k dks eq>s ys tkus ds fy;s cksyk llqjky i{k okys lHkh ykx fcuk 2]00]000 :i;s uxn ,oa eksVj lk;fdy ngst ds fcuk ys tkus ds fy;s fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa rS;kj ugh Fks eq>s yxkrkj esjs firk ds ?kj Hkh ekufld] 'kjhj :i ls yxkrkj izrkfM+r djrs jgsA blds fy;s esjh lkl ljyk nsoh] llqj] ';kefcgkjh] ifr izosUnz 'kekZ] ftBkuh jk[kh] nscj uh: ,oa iou nks"kh gS lks vkosnu djrh gWwa mfpr dk;Zokgh dh tkosA** 3- Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that in the FIR omnibus allegations have been made against the present petitioners and as vague statements have been made against the accused persons, the FIR itself deserves to be quashed in light of the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Ravikant Dubey and Ors. Vs. State of M. P. & Ors. reported in 2014(2) JLJ 25. He has also argued that the husband has filed a petition under Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce on 23/06/2014 and thereafter, the wife has lodged the FIR. 4- This Court has carefully gone through the FIR and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Paragraph No.15 to 20 of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner, reads as under:-
"15. In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the guidelines have been provided where the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be exercised which reads thus:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(5) Where, the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
16. Prior to that, in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 it was stated by the Apex Court wherein the parameters of exercise of the inherent power vested by Section 561A of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (corresponding of Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) had been laid down in the following terms:
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
17. In view of the aforesaid guidelines, if we will look into the facts mentioned in the FIR only omnibus allegations were made by the complainant, neither date nor time or place was mentioned that as and when and by whom she was subjected to cruelty. This report was lodged on 12.6.2012, wherein it was alleged that she was subjected to harassment since 27.11.2010, but neither any FIR was lodged, nor any private complaint was filed by her, and the reason was assigned that the negotiations for compromise between the parties were going on time to time, but in support of this fact no evidence was collected by the prosecution. On perusal of the order-sheet dated 28.5.2012 of Criminal Case No.81/2012 of C.J.M. Court Bhind it also seems that complainant was residing separately since 6.3.2012, even then this report was lodged after a period of three months on 12.6.2012. Delay was not explained in the FIR. Apart that it is also clear from the abovementioned order sheet that divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act had already been filed by the petitioner no.1- Ravikant Dubey, husband of the complainant-respondent No.2.
18. It is trite law that if the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law .
19. The Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 has held as under:
9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention to the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role prayed by each and every accused in committing of that offence.
20. In this case also from perusal of FIR, it is clear that only omnibus allegations were made by the complainant. No specific date, time and place was mentioned in the FIR. Apart that it cannot be subsided that even after availability of ample opportunities, neither any FIR was lodged by the complainant nor any private complaint was filed by her before any Court. Keeping in view the above discussions and proposition of law and facts narrated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that even entire facts mentioned in the FIR 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, therefore, it is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court vested under section 482 of the Code to prevent the abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the FIR registered at Crime No.181/2012 at Police Station, Kotwali Bhind and thereafter registered as Criminal Case No.81/2012 (probably New Criminal Case No.2028/2012) for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is hereby quashed. Petitioners are discharged of the charges punishable under section 498-A of IPC, meaning thereby entire proceedings in connection with Crime No.181/2012 and Criminal Case No.81/2012 are hereby dropped. Bail bonds of the petitioners are also cancelled." 5- This Court keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & Ors. reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, is of the opinion that if the allegations made in the FIR in question are taken at their face value and accepted in the entirety, they do prima-facie constitute offence against persons and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court and keeping in view the allegations made in the FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that the question of quashment of FIR and further proceedings does not arise.
6- It is true that the divorce petition has filed by the husband but at the same time statement of the complainant filed by the petitioners themselves at page 12 reflects that since February, 2013, the complainant was making efforts in the matter and she has submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police and therefore, it is not a case where the wife has come forward only after the divorce petition was filed by the husband. In the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition preferred under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej