Punit And Others vs State Of Mp And Another

Heard.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred for quashment of FIR and chargesheet of Crime

No.02/2017 registered at Mahila Police Station-Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1Punit's marriage was solemnized with respondent No.2Anura on 05.06.2014 and the petitioners'

No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. It is alleged that the petitioners' demanded dowry of Rs.10 lakh for purchasing a car from the aforesaid

amount. Respondent No.2-wife was subjected to cruelty and was compelled to bring the aforesaid amount from her parents and the last demand was

made on

15.03.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners' have left her to her parental house. Afterwards on 03.01.2017, the respondent No.2 lodged a written FIR

before the Mahila Police StationIndore against the petitioners, where Crime No.02/2017 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-

A, 506, 323 and 34 of IPC. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed. The aforesaid FIR and chargesheet has been challenged on the ground

that there is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and a petition for divorce has been filed by respondent No.2 and one petition under Section 12

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2005') has also been filed in which there is no

averment by the respondent No.2Wife with regard to demand of dowry of Rs.10 lakh for purchasing car and torture and harassment with a view to

compel respondent No.2 to bring the aforesaid amount from her parents. The complaint has been filed malafidely with ulterior motive for wreaking

vengeance and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. In the circumstances, if the proceedings of the case before the trial

Court is continued, it will cause great harm and injustice and hence, the FIR and charge-sheet be quashed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that the allegation is false or true is a matter of evidence and the averment of FIR

discloses the ingredients of offence. After investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioners' have full opportunity to raise all the grounds

before the trial Court and, in the circumstances, at this stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed, hence the petition be dismissed.

Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that the allegation with regard to demand

of dowry of Rs.10 lakh for purchasing car does not find place in the petition filed by respondent No.2 under the Act of 2005 before JMFC, Indore, and

the petition under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for divorce before the Family Court and these petitions have been filed before lodging

of the FIR and in the said FIR the last date of incident is 15.03.2016. Prima facie, it appears that the aforesaid allegation has been made with mala

fide intention and with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 Page 604 has laid down the guidelines with regard to quashment of FIR

and charge-sheet and other proceedings. Guideline No.108 of the above judgment is relevant and is reproduced below:

108: In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by

this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any

precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

Where the allegations made in the First InformationReport or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety

do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

Where the allegations in the First Information Reportand other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code.

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIRor complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute acognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by

a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint areso 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 accused.

Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any ofthe provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding

instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provisions in the Code or the concerned Act, providing

efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended withmala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

If we consider the aforesaid guideline, in the light of the fact of the present case, the aforesaid guideline No.7 is attracted in this case, as it is clear that

the averment in the FIR is after thought and it can be said that manifestly attended with mala fide and the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed and

if the proceedings against the petitioners are continued they will have to unnecessarily face the trial which will take long time and the faith of the case

is apparently bleak. Hence, this petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR of Crime No.02/2017 and the chargesheet and further proceedings are

hereby quashed against the petitioners.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately for information and its compliance.

Certified copy, as per Rules.Â