Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ruchi Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 895
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
-( 1 )- MCRC No. 11984/19 & 11323/2019
(Ruchi Kumar vs. State of MP & Anr. & Ankur Anand & Anr.vs. State of MP &
Anr.)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
Misc. Criminal Case No. 11984/2019
Ruchi Kumar ..... Applicant
Versus
State of MP and Another ..... Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND
Misc. Criminal Case No. 11323/2019
Ankur Anand & Anr. ..... Applicants
Versus
State of MP and Another ..... Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri K.P.S.Senger, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2/
complainant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting : No
-( 2 )- MCRC No. 11984/19 & 11323/2019
(Ruchi Kumar vs. State of MP & Anr. & Ankur Anand & Anr.vs. State of MP &
Anr.)
Reserved on : 30.07.2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 20th August, 2019) This order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Criminal Case No. 11984/2019 and Misc. Criminal Case No.11323/2019, as both the petitions arise out of same crime number.
2. Misc. Criminal Case No. 11984/2019 has been filed by the applicant, who is sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 and Misc. Criminal Case No. 11323/2019 has been filed by husband and mother-in-law of the complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report as well as the entire consequential proceedings against the applicants by Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri in connection with Crime No.95/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act
3. The facts leading to filing of present applications are that the respondent No.2 submitted a written application to Police Station, Kotwali, District Shivpuri to the effect that her marriage was solemnized with Ankur Anand on 15.12.2013 according to
-( 3 )- MCRC No. 11984/19 & 11323/2019 (Ruchi Kumar vs. State of MP & Anr. & Ankur Anand & Anr.vs. State of MP & Anr.) Hindu customs. After marriage, her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and other family members started harassing her for demand of dowry. When the complainant told that her father has given sufficient dowry, they threatened to oust her from matrimonial house. On these allegations, an FIR has been registered at Crime No.95/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 34 of IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by the registration of crime, this petition has been preferred by the applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that false allegations have been levelled in the complaint. The applicants have not demanded any dowry and they have been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that applicant in M.Cr.C. No. 11984/2019, who is sister-in-law of the complainant, is residing separately with the complainant. The husband of the complainant had filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Shivpuri, wherein notice had been issued, therefore, as a counter blast the complainant has filed false petition against the applicants. There are general and omnibus allegations in the FIR which do not constitute the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the applicants. On these premises, learned counsel for the applicants
-( 4 )- MCRC No. 11984/19 & 11323/2019 (Ruchi Kumar vs. State of MP & Anr. & Ankur Anand & Anr.vs. State of MP & Anr.) prays for quashing of the FIR registered at Crime No. 95/2019 and its consequential proceedings. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicants has relied on various decisions rendered by the Apex Court and also an order dated 18.3.2019 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 7339/2017, wherein this Court has allowed the application filed under Section 498-A of Cr.P.C. and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings flowing from the FIR.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and prayed for dismissal of the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In support of their contention, they have relied upon a bunch of decisions rendered by the Apex Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Allegations have been made against the applicants that they are demanding dowry and misbehaving with the complainant for no reason. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the FIR was lodged by the complainant after filing petition under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act for getting divorce
-( 5 )- MCRC No. 11984/19 & 11323/2019 (Ruchi Kumar vs. State of MP & Anr. & Ankur Anand & Anr.vs. State of MP & Anr.) from the complainant. Therefore, it has been submitted that the FIR is a counter blast of aforesaid divorce petition filed by husband of the complainant.
8. In Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 460, the Hon. Apex Court has observed as under:-
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 CrPC should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2 The court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High
-( 6 )- MCRC No. 11984/19 & 11323/2019 (Ruchi Kumar vs. State of MP & Anr. & Ankur Anand & Anr.vs. State of MP & Anr.) Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of CrPC or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a civil wrong with no element of criminality and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10.It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to
-( 7 )- MCRC No. 11984/19 & 11323/2019 (Ruchi Kumar vs. State of MP & Anr. & Ankur Anand & Anr.vs. State of MP & Anr.) appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11.Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The court has to consider the record and documents annexed with by the prosecution.
27.13.Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14.Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2)CrPC, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15.Coupled with any or all of the above, where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of CrPC or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
-( 8 )- MCRC No. 11984/19 & 11323/2019 (Ruchi Kumar vs. State of MP & Anr. & Ankur Anand & Anr.vs. State of MP & Anr.) 27.16.These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) are to be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Court should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
9. In the present case, the allegations are not so patently absurd and inherently improbable that a prudent person can ever reach a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are satisfied then the Court should not interfere. Apart that, in the present case, meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, looking to the offences charged against the applicants, I am of the view that no ground is made out for quashing the FIR. Both the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. sans substance and are hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge vv VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2019.08.21 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 10:53:10
-07'00'