Himanshubhai Jayantilal Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Himanshubhai Jayantilal Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                            1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                 ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2024
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10843 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         HIMANSHUBHAI JAYANTILAL JOSHI S/O JAYANTILAL
                         CHANDULAL JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION: RETIRED TEACHER R/O HRUSHIKESH -
                         ARUN COLONI K.V. ROAD, GONDAL 360311 DISCRICT
                         RAJKOT (GUJARAT) (GUJARAT)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANT
                         (BY SHRI PRANAY CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               THE THANA INCHARGE MAHILA THANA BHOPAL
                               (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    UPAMA VYAS D/O UMESH VYAS R/O 47 SURABHI
                               PARISAR AYODHYA BYPASS ROAD BHOPAL
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI K.V.S. RAO - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
                         (SHRI PRABHAT KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

                               This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                         following:
                                                             ORDER

This petition has been filed by the applicant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report (for short FIR) dated 7.2.2022 registered vide Crime No. 33/2022 at Mahila Thana, Bhopal and charge-sheet dated 7.10.2022.

2. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 5/9/2024 11:51:34 AM 2 father-in-law of respondent No. 2. The impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 2 in which omnibus, general and bald allegations have been levelled. It is contended that marriage of son of the applicant was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 20.5.2021. The present applicant did not reside in a common household with respondent No.2, yet respondent No. 2, just in order to harass and humiliate the present applicant along with her husband, has also implicated the applicant and has lodged the impugned FIR. It is further contended that there are no specific allegations against the applicant and the implication of the applicant is unsustainable, inasmuch as the applicant at no point of time stayed with respondent No. 2 in a common household, therefore, there is no question of demand of dowry. The counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2023 (Mahalakshmi & others Vs. The State of Karnataka & another) decided on 30.11.2023. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned FIR and ensued proceedings be quashed.

3. The counsel for the respondents have opposed contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant and submitted that there are specific allegations in the FIR against the applicant also. Thus, no interference is warranted in this petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

5. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

6. On perusal of the FIR, it reveals that there is an allegation against the applicant that on 12.9.2021, respondent No. 2 along with her husband visited Gondal, Gujarat at the resident of the applicant where the applicant demanded a sum of Rs.10 Lakh as dowry and thereafter husband of respondent No. 2 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 5/9/2024 11:51:34 AM 3 instead of opposing the applicant, pressurized respondent No. 2 to bring dowry. Thus, it is evident from the FIR that there is specific allegation against the applicant and it cannot be said that the applicant never stayed in a common household with respondent No. 2. The said aspect is required to be proved by the applicant during course of trial. At this stage, the allegations being specific cannot be gone into and no interference is warranted.

7. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the applicant in the case of Mahalakshmi & others (supra), being distinguishable on facts, is of no assistance to the applicant.

8. Thus, in view of the specific allegation in the FIR against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned FIR and ensued proceedings.

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE PB Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 5/9/2024 11:51:34 AM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court