Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Mahendra Kumar Vyas vs Smt. Pratichi Dubey on 9 February, 2017
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1 M.Cr.C.No. 10274/2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C No. 10274/2016
Ravi Mahendra Kumar Vyas & Ors.
Vs.
Smt. Pratichi Dubey
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ravi Mahendra Kumar Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vasant Roland Daniel, learned counsel for respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGEMENT
( 09/02/2017) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-
1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Criminal Complaint under Section 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with cost of Rs. 40 lakhs.
2. In short, the applicants' case is that both the respondent and applicant no. 1 are practising lawyers in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and their marriage was solemnized on 30.01.2015 at Rangir Devi Temple in Sagar without the consent of applicant no. 2 to 4. Thereafter the respondent/complainant alleged that the applicant no. 1 (husband) and his family demanded a swift car in the form of dowry from the respondent (wife) and due to 2 M.Cr.C.No. 10274/2016 non-fulfillment of this demand, the applicants started harassing the respondent. Subsequently, applicant no. 1 compelled the respondent for divorce.
3. The respondent filed a written complaint on 18.07.2015 before the concerned police station. But the applicants being influential persons, police did not register the case. Therefore the respondent with malafied intention filed a false criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Trial Court wherein the processes have been issued against the applicants for offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. This petition has been filed on the grounds that the respondent has falsely implicated the applicants in the criminal case for extracting money from the applicant no. 1. and many documents have been produced by the applicants in support of their defence including transcripts of mobile, whatsapp and facebook messages to canvass before us that the complaint is false.
5. It is a settled law that details of the defence are not to be dealt with at this stage. The criminal Courts are clothed with inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. It should be exercised in proper cases with great caution. There has to be question of law involved in the matter and disputes on fact for which enquiry is necessary cannot be looked into at this stage. 3 M.Cr.C.No. 10274/2016
6. In the instant case, contentions made by the applicants are question of facts, i.e. the defence to the complaint which has to be decided by recording of evidence. Truthfulness of the documents filed by the applicants cannot be evaluated at this stage in this proceeding under Section 482. In case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, "High Court cannot entertain disputed questions of fact under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code even though defence of accused appears to be plausible but it should not be considered while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC. Court ordinarily has to proceed on the basis of complaint averments". Same principle has been laid down in the case of Bobbili Ram Krishna Raja Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2016) 3 SCC
309.
7. Further, it cannot be also assumed at this juncture based on the material available that criminal proceedings were initiated malafidely or maliciously, hence, it is not a fit case where the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC can be invoked.
8. Consequently, the present application is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vidya