Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veerendra Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2013
1
M.Cr. C No.15521/12
25.3.2013
Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv. for the State/respondent
no.1.
Shri Anurag Shivhare, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Heard on the question of admission.
The applicants/accused have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the First Information Report registered as Crime No. 146/12, at Police Station Chichali, District Narsinghpur against the applicants for the offence of Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Applicants' counsel after taking me through the averments of the report in writing given by the respondent no.2 to the Station House Officer of the aforesaid Police Station (Annexure-A-2) and by referring some proceedings of 'Parivar Paramersh Kendra' Gadarwara (Annexure- A-3) said that, in view of the averment of this proceedings of 'Parivar Paramersh Kendra', which was written after making the efforts for reconciliation between the applicant no.2 Vineet Jain and the respondent No.2 said that, on taking into consideration such proceedings dated 4.9.2011 (Annexure-A-3), the averment stated in the First Information Report (Annexure-A-1) on which the original offence was registered (Annexure-A-2) at Police Station on dated 15.5.2012, could not be deemed to be reliable and cannot be believed even to proceed for investigation for the alleged offence as such, the impugned First Information Report in writing was given by the respondent no.2 on the false pretext and false averments. In such premises, the same deserves to be quashed. In continuation he said that, according to the aforesaid proceedings (Annexure-A-3), the respondent no.2 was ready and prepared to reside with the applicant 2 no.2 only in that circumstances if he will comes and start some business or profession in the State of M.P. otherwise, she is not ready to go with applicant-husband to matrimonial home. Thus considering such aspects, the impugned FIR should be quashed. By referring the other documents he said that, the ingredients of alleged offence are not made out against any of the applicants and prayed to quash the impugned FIR as well as it's investigation by admitting and allowing this petition.
Keeping in view the arguments I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record so also the case diary available with the State counsel.
True it is, before lodging the First Information Report (Annexure- A-1) on which the offence (Annexure-A-2) was registered. Some proceedings was carried out between the applicant no.2 and the respondent no.2 at 'Parivar Paramersh Kendra' Gadarwara. According to which, on making the efforts to subside their matrimonial dispute, the same was failed and besides the other grounds, on the aforesaid grounds also the case was argued for quashment of the FIR by the applicant's counsel. But at the initial stage of case the alleged proceedings of 'Parivar Paramersh Kendra', could not be considered as proved evidence in the case. I am of the view that at the stage of investigation of a criminal and in any case, before holding the trial, the version stated in Annexure-A-3 could not be a foundation to quash the impugned case. The same may be a good defence at the trial. At this stage, Court has to consider only the averments of the FIR as well as the interrogatory statements of the witnesses so also the other available evidence collected by the Investigation agency. On evaluation of the same I have found prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence of Section 498-A of I.P.C. as well as of Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants. In such premises, there was no 3 option with the Police except to register the offence under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and proceed for investigation. Mere on the basis of some proceedings of 'Parivar Paramersh Kendra' at the initial stage neither the investigation of the case nor the trial could be quashed. Although whatsoever grounds have been taken by the applicants in the present petition, the same may be raised by them in their defence at the appropriate stage of trial, but on the basis of the same the impugned FIR could not be quashed because from the averments of the FIR as well as the interrogatory statements of the victim and other witnesses examined from the parental family of the respondent no.2, the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out as stated above. In such premises, I have not found any circumstance for invoking the inherent powers of this Court enumerated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR and it's investigation. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.
(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge Pb 4