Sonam & Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings of Crime No. 65/2019 registered

at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The brief facts of the case are that deceased/wife of Kuldeep Bhadoriya, viz, Poonam, resident of village Manhad, Police Station Gormi, District

Bhind has committed suicide in the house of her husband in village Manhad on 19.10.2018. She was admitted in the Sahara Hospital, Gwalior by her

in-laws on the date of incident. She died in the hospital on 28.10.2018 during treatment. Police Gormi has registered a case under section 174 of IPC

at merg No.48/19 and after recording of statement of parents of the deceased and relatives, police registered the case under Section 304-B and 498-A

of IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act.

It is pleaded that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 15.11.2016 with co-accused Kuldeep Singh and at the time of marriage, parents

of the deceased had given sufficient articles and money etc. as dowry. The in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied with the dowry given in the

marriage, therefore, the deceased Poona committed suicide on 19.10.2019. The petitioners have been implicated in the case as they are sisters of

husband of deceased on the basis of general allegations. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners in respect of dowry demand or torture to

the deceased. No prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners. Therefore, this petition has been preferred by the petitioners for

quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners. There is no allegation of

harassment and cruelty to the petitioners. It is further contended that petitioner No. 1 and 2 have married and living separately with their husband from

the date of their marriage. They have nothing to do with the affairs of the family of deceased. Petitioner No.3 is a female child of 13 years of age and

she has been implicated in the case with a view to make harassment. The deceased was brought to the hospital by her in-laws to save her life, but

during treatment the deceased died. It is further submitted that the FIR is delayed. It is also submitted that there is a tendency developed for roping all

the relatives of husband in the case of dowry death. In the present case also all the family members have been implicated on the basis of general

allegations. It is further stated that husband of the deceased Kuldeep Singh was in service in the Indian Army and was posted in the District Siligudi,

West Bengal and at the time of incident he was not present.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions and submitted that FIR is properly registered and without recording

evidence it cannot be said that there was no involvement of the present petitioners in the crime. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.3 is minor

and her case may be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. There is no ground for quashing the FIR at this stage. The deceased died within seven

years of her marriage.

On perusal of the record it is found that in Crime No. 65/2019, offence under section 304-B and 498-A of IPC and section ¾ of Dowry

Prohibition Act has been registered against the petitioners. Though it is submitted that petitioner No. 1 & 2 are residing with their husbands in their

house and they have not committed any offence and the petitioner No.3 has been implicated with an intent to harass her, but the aforesaid facts are

required to be proved with the help of evidence before the trial Court.

On perusal of the material available on record, it is also apparent that the case is at the invesdtigation stage and the trial Court would be within its

domain to consider the factum of demand of dowry at the time of framing of charge and it is trite law that appreciation of evidence, probability of

allegations made in the FIR and the defence raised by the persons accused of the offence cannot be gone into by this Court in a proceeding under

Section 482 of CrPC.

The law regarding proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inP adal Venkata Rama Reddy alias Ramu

vs. Kovvuri Satnarayana Reddy and Others [(2011) 12 SCC 437] , and it was held as under :

“11. Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is very wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases.

Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to

remove injustice. The inherent power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it.

These powers are partly administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and

for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under Section 482 is discretionary, therefore the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion...â€​

In view of the aforesaid discussion, no interference in the proceedings of the trial Court is warranted. The petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC

is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to continue with the trial in accordance with law.

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