Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akansha Kamdar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 4th OF JANUARY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48908 of 2021
Between:-
AKANSHA KAMDAR D/O SHRI BHEEM
KAMDAR W/O ROHIT KEWLANI , AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
A 236 FLAT NO.102 ANAND APARTMENT
INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW U.P. (UTTAR
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANISH DATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
MAYANK SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
SIDHI KOTWALI SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TAPAN BATHRE, PANEL LAWYER)
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
ORDER
T h e petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No.825/2021 registered at Police Station Sidhi Kotwali, District Sidhi (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 of the IPC and also under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.
It is submitted that the deceased Pooja Kamdar W/o Shri Chandrashekhar Kamdar was resident Nutan Colony, Sidhi, Police Station- Kotwali, District Sidhi. She was married in the year 2018 with the brother of the petitioner according to Hindu rites and traditions. The incident took place on 24/07/2021 at about 20:10 hours and the FIR was lodged at about 19:55 hours on the next day i.e. 25/07/2021 without there being any explanation for such delay. The allegations are with regard to causing harassment and demand of amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. An FIR was got registered in Crime No.825/2021 at Police Station-Kotwali, District Sidh for the aforesaid Signature Not Verified SAN offences. It is argued that as the petitioner is not falling within the definition of Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.04 15:04:51 IST 2 the relative as provided under the Act and is a distinct relative, no case could be registered under Section 498-A of IPC. She is only Nanad (sister-in-law) of the deceased.
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court vide judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case U. Suvetha Vs. State By Insp of police, reported in 2009 Vol 6 SCC 757 and in the case of Vijeta Gajra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2010 Vol 11 SCC 618 to substantiate the arguments that against the distinct relative, no offence under Section 498-A, 34 of the IPC and also under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act could be made out. Placing reliance upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 2324, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has considered the aspect of tendency of registration of cases against all the family members including the real culprits. It is argued that as no case is made out against the present petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against her will be a futile exercise and would be an abuse of process of law. In such circumstances, he prays for quashment of the FIR.
Per contra, counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that there are allegations against the present petitioner, which are clearly reflected from the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is argued that the petitioner is the Nanad (sister-in-law ) and cannot be said to a distinct relative. The husband of the deceased was the brother of the present petitioner. The non- involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence being a matter of evidence has to be considered by the trial Court. The petitioner is required to demonstrate by leading cogent evidence that her involvement in the present offence is not reflected. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a large number of cases has considered this aspect that the powers under Section 482 of the Signature Not Verified SAN Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. As there is a clear cut involvement of the Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.04 15:04:51 IST 3 present petitioner, which is reflected from the statements, therefore, no case for qushment of FIR is made out at this stage.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Law with respect to quashment of the F.I.R. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is apparently clear as has been held by the Hon'ble Suprme Court in a large number of cases. The powers should be primarily and cautiously used. In the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2021 (2) SCC 427, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered and held as under:-
"11. The principles with respect to quashment of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by ways of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to given an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised.
13. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the Signature Not Verified SAN Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.04 15:04:51 IST 4 duty on the Court." The Supreme Court has laid down seven principles in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 108 and 109 has held as under :-
"108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
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 F.I.R. 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 Signature Not Verified SAN or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.04 15:04:51 IST 5 not disclose 265 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.
109. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
The case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the categories as Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.04 15:04:51 IST 6 laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). Thus, no case for quashment of F.I.R. is made out.
From the perusal of the record, prima facie, it is seen that there are specific allegations in the FIR as well as in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Whether the involvement of the petitioner was in the commission of offence or not is a matter of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a large number of cases has categorically held that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised sparingly. Prima facie, the allegations against the present petitioner are reflected from the F.I.R. as well as the statements of the witnesses. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition for quashment of the criminal proceedings/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as there is sufficient material available on record against the present petitioner, which are reflected from the FIR and the statements of the witnesses.
The petition sans merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Prar Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Date: 2022.02.04 15:04:51 IST