Savita Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Petitioners have filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC seeking relief of quashment of F.I.R. No. 91/2021 and criminal proceedings pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Durg in criminal case No. 1098/2022 for alleged offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 04 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime. The marriage of complainant with accused Rajkumar Shukla was solemnized on 22.11.2019. As the complainant could not adjust herself, within shortest period of time, left her matrimonial home, lodged the false complaint against petitioners in the police station. In the complaint, even petitioners no. 2 to 4 who are distant relatives have also been implicated. In the charge sheet submitted by the police no specific allegation has been levelled against petitioners to attract the alleged offence against them. False implication is with ill-motive and is malicious. Father of complainant is Head Constable working in the police department and therefore had implicated all the family members including the distant relatives making false allegations. Permitting the prosecution against petitioners against which there are no direct allegation will be an abuse of process of law. He contended that the complainant and her family members have misused the provisions of IPC as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act and therefore the relief prayed for by the petitioners in this petition be granted and quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against them. He places his reliance upon in the case of Ammasi Kounder (dead) through Lrs vs. Govindammal reported in (2005) 11 SCC 538, Kailash Chandra Agrawal vs. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551, Varala Bharath Kumar vs. State of Telangana, (2017) 9 SCC 413 and in the case of Kartik Chandra Majee @ Kartik Chand Majee and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2018) 13 SCC 747.

Learned State counsel would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and would submit that the submission of learned counsel for petitioners is not correct, there are prima facie allegation of harassment and cruelty against all the petitioners. He contended that as there are material against the petitioners they are not entitled for the relief as prayed in the writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on both sides and also perused the documents placed on record.

Along with petition, petitioners have placed on record copy of charge sheet including the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. F.I.R. was lodged on 06.09.2021, based on the complaint made by Preeti Tiwari. In the F.I.R. there are allegations against all the persons, in the statement of complainant also there are allegations against petitioner no. 1 (mother-in-law), petitioner no. 2 (sister-in-law), petitioner no. 3 (husband of sister-in-law) and petitioner no. 4 (father-in-law of petitioner no. 2). According to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, quashment of F.I.R. or the criminal proceedings to be in exceptional cases and not in any routine manner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal reported in (1992) Suppl. (1) SCC 335 while dealing with the issue of exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of F.I.R. has observed thus:

“102. 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and 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.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 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.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable 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.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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 accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala 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.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

In the case of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that quashing of F.I.R. can only be in exceptional circumstances and some of the exceptional circumstances are held to be where manifestly there is some legal bar against institution or continuation of prosecution; where allegations made even if taken at face value do not constitute any offence; allegations made do not constitute cognizable offence and allegations made are so absurd and improbable that any prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused.

Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh etc. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1025-1026 of 2023 while considering the prayer for quashment of F.I.R./ criminal case has observed that while considering the prayer for quashment of F.I.R. the court should not conduct the criminal trial for which it is clear that at this stage correctness of the allegation is not to be assessed and only to be looked whether there is material to proceed or not.

As discussed above, the allegations are under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and in the facts of the case, the complainant herself who reside in the matrimonial home would be the important witness and in her statement under Section 161 CrPC as well as from the contents of F.I.R. it is apparent that there are some allegations against the petitioners and therefore considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra), Amish Devgan (supra) and Aryan Singh (supra), I do not find any merit in this case. The decisions relied upon by the counsel for petitioners are on different sets of facts and from which he may not get any benefit.

Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.