Ramakant Gupta vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. The applicants have moved the present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. against registration of Crime No. 13/2013 registered at Mahila Police Station Sagar for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant who was wife of applicant No. 5 Sundeet had lodged an FIR at Police Station, Jabalpur that she was being harassed for demand of dowry since November 2011. Soon after her marriage all the applicants were harassing her for demand of dowry. Thereafter her husband was shifted to Bhopal, but husband was also harassing her at Bhopal and she was shifted to Sagar by her husband, where the remaining applicants were harassing the complainant on the basis of dowry demand etc. In March 2013 her father took her to Jabalpur and thereafter she was residing at Jabalpur. She had lodged a written report on 9.7.2013 and therefore case was registered at Mahila Police Station Jabalpur and it was transferred to Mahila Police Station Sagar.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that Dr. Ramakant Gupta, father-in-law of the complainant had sent an FIR to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur about the behaviour of the complainant and requested that if a false FIR has been lodged by the complainant, then it may not be entertained, because the complainant was giving such a threat to her husband and all family members. When her husband was transferred to Bhopal, she never resided at Sagar. She was pressurizing her husband that he should get transferred to Jabalpur so that from his salary some help of her father could be done.

Looking to the FIR sent by the applicant No. 1 to SP Jabalpur (Annexure A-7) it cannot be said that the applicants created a defence when lodging an FIR by the complainant. Looking to the documents filed by the applicants on record, it would be apparent that the complainant did not lodge any FIR against the applicants till her husband was transferred to Bhopal and thereafter she did not reside with the remaining applicants except her husband. Therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the applicants No. 1 to 4 had tortured her for dowry demand. The complainant with her husband was residing at Bhopal, whereas the applicants No. 1 and 2 i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant were residing at Sagar. The applicants No. 3 and 4 are also residing separately at Bhopal and they were not residing at Sagar, because applicant No. 3 Praneet was a Government servant at Bhopal. There is no allegation against the applicants No. 3 and 4 that they tortured the complainant at Bhopal. Under such circumstances, the FIR lodged by the complainant against the applicants No. 1 to 4 appears to be false and it is the settled view of Hon''ble the Apex Court that innocent persons should not be made liable to face a criminal trial.

However, the applicant No. 5 is the husband of the complainant and if the she alleges against the applicant No. 5 for dowry demand etc. at Bhopal, then her testimony cannot be brushed aside at this stage.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the petition filed by the applicant No. 5 cannot be accepted, but the petition can be accepted for the applicants No. 1 to 4. Consequently, the present petition filed by the applicants No. 1 to 4 is hereby allowed, but the petition is dismissed for the applicant No. 5. It is directed that Crime No. 13/2013 registered at Mahila Police Station Sagar for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. The investigation officer is directed to delete the name of applicants No. 1 to 4 from the investigation and if charge sheet is filed before the trial Court, then the trial Court shall drop their names from the trial. However, the investigation as well as trial may continue for the applicant No. 5. A copy of this order be sent to the CJM Sagar for information and compliance and to inform the concerned court.