M/s. Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. Ltd. vs State Level Committee & Ors

The present petition is filed by the mother & brother-in- law of respondent No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR dated 24/07/2015 registered at crime No.77/2015 at Mahila Thana, Indore under Section 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential criminal proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, Indore in criminal case No.24443/2015.

According to the facts the respondent No.2 was married with Anil Kethwas, son of petitioner No.1 and younger brother of petitioner No.2 on 30/04/2015 at Mhow, District-Indore and on the same day, came to her matrimonial home at Indore. Reception was organized by the petitioners on 01/05/2016 at Indore. After Reception she lived at her matrimonial home at Bhagirathpura with petitioners only for 2 days. In the morning on 03/05/2016 parents of respondent No.2 took back her to her parental home and on 04/05/2016 she proceeded for Mumbai with her husband Anil Kethwas where he was working as Class- IV employee with Railways. Thus, the respondent No.2 lived with the petitioners only for 2 days and thereafter she never came back to live with them at Indore.

Initially on 03/07/2015 the respondent No.2 filed a written complaint with the Mahila Thana, Indore alleging she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and she was threatened for causing injury on her person. Thereafter on 24/07/2015 she filed an FIR with the same allegation which was registered as crime No.77/2015. Thereafter on 27/08/2015 her statement was also recorded before the Protection Officer under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act. She also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights bearing HMA case No.79/2015 pending before II ADJ, Mhow. Police filed charge-sheet before JMFC, Indore which was registered as criminal case No.24443/2015.

It is submitted by the petitioners that respondent No.2 lived with them only for 2 days and on all occasions of recording her statement viz in her written complaint dated 03/07/2015, FIR dated 24/07/2015 and statement before Protection Officer on 27/08/2015, she has substantially changed her allegations, which creates serious doubt about truthfulness of her statement. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is 60 years old lady and her husband is paralyzed. They live with elder Petitiner no.2 son at Bhagirathpura, Indore. Petitioner No.2 is a Government Servant having responsibility of 3 children with his parents. Husband of respondent No.2 was living separate away from the parental house at his place of posting since much before the marriage and after marriage also he was resided separately in Mumbai. Respondent No.2 never resided with the petitioner except for 2 days after marriage as stated above. Ever changing statement are sufficient to show that allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 are false and fabricated, therefore, they prayed for quashing of FIR and all the consequential criminal proceedings pending against them.

State has opposed the petition.

I have heard both the counsel and perused the record.

The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extra ordinary in nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised springily and only in the case where attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use of power. The Court can interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts in such exceptional cases where it appears that the orders if not corrected would be great injustice to someone, where in passing the order, the Court is capricious and arbitrary or where order passed by learned Courts below have been based on no evidence or material at all available on record or order has been passed on such evidence or material which is wholly irrelevant or arbitrary or where the orders suffers from fundamental legal defects or where the evidence produced in support of the claim, if taken at their face value makes out absolutely no case or where the orders are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the opponent. At this stage sifting or weighing of the evidence neither permitted nor expected.

In Krishnanan Vs. Krishnaveni (1997 AIR SCW 950 : AIR 1997 SC 987) it is held that when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power. It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings.

It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners did not disclose in their petition that a petition M.Cr.C. No.905/2016 had been filed by the co-accused-Vandana Chouhan, which was dismissed on merits by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02/12/2016.

The averments and the allegations of both the petitions (MCRC 905/2016 and present one) are substantially the same on the material points, therefore, different view by other Bench is not plausible.

Even otherwise evaluation of evidence can not be done at this stage. Certain allegations have been made in the present case, their truthfulness has to be evaluated. They cannot be thrown away at threshold. What would be the effect of contradictions or discrepancies is a matter of fact and has to be seen by the trial court.

Looking to the evidence available on record, quashing of FIR and all subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioners is not at all proper at this stage. This Court can not usurp jurisdiction of the trial court. The present petition has no merits and is liable to be and is dismissed hereby. However, no order as to cost.