Jitendra Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioners have filed present Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No. 44/2022 registered by the Police Station – Mahila Thana, Bilaspur for commission of offence under Section 498A and 34 of the IPC and criminal proceeding of criminal case No. 88/2023 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant filed a written complaint before Mahila Police Station Bilaspur alleging that on 10.02.2022 the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Jitendra Dubey on 10th February 2022 as per Hindu rituals. Further prosecution case is that after marriage the complainant was living in a joint family with her in-laws subsequent to the marriage, the behavior of her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law was not good. It is alleged that on the pretext of tiredness, her husband was not consuming marriage with her on the eve of ceremonial first night. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant was subjected to torture physical as well as mentally on the count that she has brought less dowry from her parental house. It is also stated that her father gave smart cooler TV, fridge, washing machine, cupboard, mixer grinder, bed, sofa and utensils in the marriage in his capacity though the in-laws have demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- for the business of her brother-in-law. It is also alleged that husband has tortured her and demanded Rs. 7,00,000/- as dowry. It is alleged that on 09.03.2022 when the victim went to her parental house and stayed there for some time then her husband did not come to bring her back. On 20th May 2022 she returned to her matrimonial house with her brother then her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and husband again started torturing her and saying why she did not perform another marriage as they will not allow her to reside with them in the matrimonial house. It is also alleged that her husband tortured her and told that he will not provide her any kind of facility and will not too add her name in his service record. It is the case of the prosecution that proper food items were not provided her to cook food and when she insisted to prepare food in the kitchen then her husband and other family members assaulted her as a result of which her clothes were torn and anyhow she saved herself from the hands of petitioners and went inside other room and closed the door then she called the police dialed on 112 and on arrival of Police, the in-laws requested her not to lodge the report against them. It is also case of the prosecution, that due to unbearable situation, she left the matrimonial house, told the incident to her parents and lodged the written complaint against the petitioners and on the basis of complaint, FIR has been registered against them. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the proceedings are pending before JMFC Janjgir-Champa.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No. 3 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.3 whose marriage was solemnized with petitioner No1. Jitendra Dubey on 10.02.2022. He would further submit that bald allegations have been made by the complainant in the FIR and the respondent No.3 pressurized her husband to live separately from the in-laws. He would further submit that the petitioner No.1 did not agree to live separately with their parents then the respondent No.3 started to harass the petitioner No.1 and the other family members to rope them in a domestic violence also. He would further submit that the brother of respondent No.3 has continuously tortured the petitioner No.1 on telephone to trap him in the forged case of dowry. He would further submit that the respondent No.3 has left her matrimonial house on her own will without informing her husband and the other members and the allegations are also not specific and are omnibus, thus the prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but misuse of the process of law. It has also been contended that in matrimonial disputes, there is tendency to implead the close relatives of the husband falsely just to take revenge and would pray for allowing the instant petition, quash the FIR as well as entire criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in respect of the petitioners.

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that in the present case, specific role of the petitioners has been attributed in the FIR and the petitioners have committed serious act of assault on the victim which proves from the medical report. He would further submit that there is strong material and evidence available on record to show prima facie involvement of the applicants in commission of offence . As such, he submits that the present criminal miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition.

Considering the fact that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 10.02.2022 with the petitioner No.1 and the FIR was lodged against the petitioners on 27.08.2022 with allegation that she was being harassed by the petitioners, soon after the marriage. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that name of all the petitioners have been duly mentioned in the FIR by names and specific allegations have been levelled against them for demand of dowry and consuming physical and mental harassment to the complainant on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. From reading the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the aforesaid offence, as such, it cannot be said that prima-facie no offence is made out against the applicants. Considering the statements of neighbours Jyoti Sharma and Brijbhushan Singh wherein they have stated that the victim was assaulted in the name of dowry by the petitioners, in view of this prima facie there is sufficient material and evidence to prosecute the petition for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C.

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the bald and general allegations have been leveled against the petitioners therefore, FIR and subsequent Criminal Proceedings deserve to be rejected as the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC has reiterated that the brother in law has demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- for starting his business and her husband tortured her for demand of Rs. 7,00,000/- as demand of dowry and her mother in law, brother in law and husband have assaulted her on 21.06.2022 and to escape from the assault, she has kept herself closed in another room. Thereafter she has dialed 112 to rescue herself as was rescued by the Police. From the statements of the father, brother of the complainant, it prima-facie reflects involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offence. The neighbours of the petitioners have also stated about the incident taken place with the complainant.

From above discussion and considering the factual and legal preposition, it is clear that prima-facie, commission of offence by the petitioners is available on record. though its correctness and genuineness can be examined by the trial Court at the time of recording of evidence. As such, the accused cannot escape from their criminal liability unless it is established in the trial that they have not committed any offence. From material placed on record, it is quite vivid that prima-facie the involvement of the accused is there, therefore, the registration of FIR cannot be said to be an abuse of process of law.

Simultaneously, the genuineness and correctness of statements of other witnesses and the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C., can be examined by the trial Court while recording of evidence. This Court while hearing the matter under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini trial and examine the reliability or genuineness of the statement of witnesses or allegations made in the FIR.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & another {(2004) 6 SCC 522}, held as under:-

"10. In all these cases there was either statements of witnesses or seizure of illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the F.I.R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R.P. Kapoor and Bhajan Lal cases (supra).

Ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial. These are not the cases where it can be said that the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR in the concerned cases.

So far as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1183/2003, 1193-1196/2003 and Criminal Appeals arising out of SLPs(Crl.) Nos. 2191/2003, 2632/2003, 2633/2003, and 3463/2003 are concerned, we find that the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence without anything being added or subtracted from the recitals therein. Though the FIR is not intended to be an encyclopedia of the background scenario, yet even skeletal features must disclose the commission of an offence. The position is not so in these cases. Therefore, the High Court's interference does not suffer from any legal infirmity, though the reasonings indicated by the High Court do not have our approval."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar & others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor {(2013) 3 SCC 330}, held as under:-

"28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is 2 (2013) 3 SCC 330 not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others {(2017) 2 SCC 779}, held as under:-

"15. We have referred to the said decisions only to stress upon the issue, how the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in a proceeding relating to quashment of FIR can be justified. We repeat even at the cost of repetion that the said power has to be exercised in a very sparing manner and is not to be used to choke or smother the prosecution that is legitimate. The surprise that was expressed almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra University case compels us to observe that we are also surprised by the impugned order."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others {AIR 2021 SC 1918}, held as under, relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-

"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be 3 (2017) 2 SCC 779 4 AIR 2021 SC 1918 confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;"

Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. AryanSingh {Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026_of 2023 dated 10.04.2023} has held as under :-

4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Courton conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law,atthestageof discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved.This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not”.

Considering the role attributed by the petitioners as there are specific allegations against the petitioners that they are harassing the complainant by abusing filthy language and assaulted her on many time which is supported by the medical report attached in the challan, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised for quashment of FIR registered against the petitioners.

Accordingly, the petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.