Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Singh Tomar vs State Of M.P on 16 April, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.
M.Cr.C.No.1627/2014
Pankaj Singh Tomar and Others
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Shri A.S.Bhadoriya, counsel for the applicants.
Shri B.P.S.Chouhan, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.
Shri D.S.Kushawah, counsel for the respondent No.2.
O R D E R
(Passed on the 16.04.2015) The applicants have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C against registration of crime No.19/2014 registered at Mahila Police Station, Gwalior whereby an offence under Sections 498A, 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered and a charge sheet has been filed before the concerned trial Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 had lodged an F.I.R on 18.01.2014 that her marriage took place with Kaushlendra Singh. The applicant Arti is sister of Kaushlendra Singh and applicant Pankaj is husband of the applicant Arti. After marriage of the complainant she was
- 2 -
M.Cr.C.No.1627/2014 being harassed for dowry demand etc., and ultimately on 28.09.2013 she was ousted from her husband's house, then she went to the Police Station but she was advised to go before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra and ultimately her F.I.R. could be registered on 18.01.2014. The charge sheet has already been filed before the concerned court.
3. I heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complainant/respondent No.2 was residing with her husband at Vaishnavi Puram, Gwalior, whereas the applicant Arti is a married girl of the family who was residing with her husband Pankaj Tomar, who was working as a Mandi Inspector and posted at Karera Distt. Shivpuri at the relevant period, Arti Tomar wife of Pankaj Tomar was also residing with him. In the F.I.R. omnibus allegation was made that the applicants participated in the crime, however no fixed date has been shown in the F.I.R. that they ever visited Gwalior on a particular date or interfered in the family life of the complainant. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that on 28.09.2013 the applicants have also participated in the crime when the complainant was ousted from her husband's house. The applicant Pankaj Tomar has filed the
- 3 -
M.Cr.C.No.1627/2014 copy of his attendance register to show that on that particular day he was present in his office at Karera.
5. It is further submitted that now it is a tendency of such bride to implicate all the family members of her husband and therefore, if an innocent person is unnecessarily harassed, then interest of such person should be safeguarded. A reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another "((2010) 7 SCC 667), in which it is held that the allegation of the harassment of husband's close relatives who had been living in different cities and rarely visited the place where the complainant resided with her husband then such allegation should be scrutinized with great care and no innocent person should be prosecuted without any sufficient cause.
6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Preeti Gupta (supra), if facts of the present case are considered, then it would be apparent that there is no specific allegation of the complainant that the applicants have often visited the house of her husband. she could not give a particular date when
- 4 -
M.Cr.C.No.1627/2014 the applicant visited the house of her husband or interfered in her family life.
7. Looking to the attendance register of the applicant Pankaj Singh Tomar, it would be apparent that on 28.09.2013 Pankaj Singh Tomar was not present to commit a crime against the complainant. It appears that the complainant implicated all the close relatives of her husband. Under such circumstances prima facie, it appears that the applicants did not participate in the crime. If they would have demanded anything for once, then that demand does not fall within the purview of harassment. The applicants were residing at Karera and they did not have any opportunity to interfere in day to day family life of the complainant. It appears that the complainant has implicated all the close relatives including the applicants and therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Preeti Gupta (supra), it is a fit case in which the crime registered against the applicants should be quashed.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that omnibus allegations are made against the applicants by the complainant and there was no possibility to visit on or often to the house of her husband to harass the complainant and,
- 5 -
M.Cr.C.No.1627/2014 therefore, inherent power of this Court can be invoked in favour of the applicants that they should not be harassed to face the trial without any basis. Under these circumstances, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants Pankaj Singh Tomar and Arti Tomar is hereby allowed. Registration of crime No. 19/2014 at Mahila Police Station Mahila, Gwalior against these two applicants is hereby quashed. Consequently the charge sheet filed before the competent Magistrate against these two persons is set aside. The trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings against the Pankaj Singh Tomar and Arti Tomar. The trial Court shall proceed against the other coaccused.
9. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 16.04.2015 VC