Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2020
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 Mcrc.36315.2020
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
M.Cr.C.36315.2020
[Hemant Upadhyaya & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.]
Gwalior dated 07.10.2020
Shri Amar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rohit Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.
Inherent powers of this Court u/S.482 Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail the FIR in question bearing Crime No.391/2020 dated 05.07.2020 (Annexure P/1) where the offences u/S.498A, 323 IPC and u/S.3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act are alleged against the petitioners who are brother-in-law (Devar- petitioner No.1), husband (petitioner No.2), father-in-law (Sasur- petitioner No.3) and mother-in-law (Saas- petitioner No.4) of complainant/respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals total lack of foundational ingredients necessary for constitution of offences alleged even on prima facie basis. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR materially lack in specificity and therefore are vague and thus no investigation or trial can be based on such a vague FIR.
A bare perusal of the impugned FIR lodged by respondent No.2/complainant reveals allegations that marriage of complainant/respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 took place on 03.12.2017 2 Mcrc.36315.2020 as per Hindu rites and customs where complainant discloses that her father gave dowry comprising of Fridge, LED, Sofa, double bed, AC etc. along with certain jwellery. Thereafter, it is alleged in the FIR that for two months matrimonial peace prevailed but thereafter, discord arose when the petitioners started demanding more dowry including a four-wheeler and a flat and told the complainant to leave the matrimonial home and come back only when she brings additional dowry. The FIR further discloses that when these facts were disclosed by complainant to her parents, the parents tried to reason with the petitioners but to no avail and the petitioners caused physical and mental cruelty, took the complainant and left her at parental house. At the parental place, it is alleged that complainant lodged a petition in the court which led to settlement between the rival parties whereafter the petitioners took the complainant to her matrimonial home but then again subjected her to cruelty. Whereafter on 04.07.2020, on the request of complainant her brother came to her matrimonial home and took her to parental home since when she is living with her parents.
Though the allegations contained in the FIR are not very specific in regard to each of the petitioners and lack specificity but omnibus allegations have been made against all the petitioners of dowry demand related cruelty.
The ground raised by the petitioners of the basic foundational ingredients of offences punishable u/S.498A IPC not having been made out, ostensibly appear to be correct, but this Court would not like to go into the 3 Mcrc.36315.2020 merits of the case at this stage in view of the pending investigation where material/evidence for and against the rival parties is being collected. If any finding is rendered by this Court on the merits of the allegations in FIR then that may adversely affect the investigation.
Though the allegations made against the petitioners may be a bit vague in the FIR but that by itself cannot persuade this Court to straightway quash the FIR and truncate the investigation which is still pending. By doing so, this Court will be interfering with the jurisdiction of investigation exclusively reserved under the Cr.P.C. for the police. Such interference is only called for when the allegations in the FIR on the very face do not disclose even the foundational ingredients necessary for constituting an offence on prima facie basis. The view of this Court is bolstered by the decision of Apex Court in the case of "State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Pastor P. Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728".
Consequently, this Court declines interference lest the investigation may be prejudiced.
Accordingly, this Court refuses to invoke inherent powers u/S.482 Cr.P.C. and dismisses the present petition.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge pd PAWAN Digitally signed by PAWAN DHARKAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF DHARK MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=345b3604d572ed9dd14 AR 92fe82dc3b1eef67eff2cb59f3ac97 e920ac264de7828, cn=PAWAN DHARKAR Date: 2020.10.09 15:11:44 +05'30'