Vivek Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard D.K. Gwalre, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for Respondent No.1/State as well as Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-

“3.01. Allow the instant petition; and

3.02.  graciously  be  pleased  to  quash  the  questioned charge-sheet  No.26/2015  and  consequently  quash  the Criminal Case No.10485/2015 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur (C.G.) so far as it relates to the petitioner herein.”

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that respondent No.2/Complainant-Smt. Sughriti Sahu got married with the co-accused namely Kamlesh Sahu on 17/02/2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The petitioner happens to be brother-in-law of the complainant. After getting married with the co-accused, the complainant went to her matrimonial house situated at District-Guna (M.P.) and soon thereafter, she flew abroad alongwith her husband namely, Kamlesh Sahu to Singapore, the place of employment of her husband. The complainant never expressed her willingness and co-operation towards her matrimonial obligations and often used to create unnecessary complications in the matrimonial life, which resulted into certain differences between the couple and ultimately after a very short span of time, the complainant returned back to India on 18/07/2011 and started residing at her parental place at Raipur (C.G.) and not at her matrimonial house at Guna (M.P.). Co-accused Kamlesh Sahu alongwith others tried to persuade the complainant to lead a happy and peaceful married life, but all in vain. In the meantime on 23/03/2012, respondent No.2/Complainant gave birth to a girl child at Raipur (C.G.) and on that occasion also, she was persuaded to come back to her matrimonial house, but she remained adamant in her behavior and attitude and refused to go back to her matrimonial house either at Guna (M.P.) or to her husband in Singapore. After birth of the girl child, respondent No. 2/Complainant visited her matrimonial house at District Guna (M.P.) for a very short span of time, but in that period also she remained absolutely adamant and indifferent towards her in-laws and went back to her parental house at Raipur (CG). On 11/03/2015 respondent No.2/Complainant submitted a written complaint with full of afterthought, exaggerated and baseless allegations against the entire family members of her husband. The written report contained references of the present petitioner at two instances, those are: (1) after birth of daughter on 23/03/2012 the petitioner herein, alongwith two other co-accused persons, had visited Raipur (CG); and (ii) whenever the petitioner used to visit Guna (M.P.) he used to harass respodnent No.2 for dowry. It would be worth mentioning here that no specific allegation has been leveled against the petitioner but general and vague allegations have been levelled.

On 21/04/2015 the prosecution registered the questioned F.I.R. No. 18/2015 against accused persons including the petitioner herein for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and after completing the investigation on 27/07/2015 submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Raipur (CG). Finding the submitted charge-sheet and pending prosecution to be a clear abuse of process of court as well as law, the petitioner (alongwith 4 others) had preferred the Cr.M.P. No. 834/2015 under Section under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings. This Court had been pleased by disposing of the preferred Cr.M.P. vide order dated 08/08/2016 with an observation that "it would not proper at this juncture to go into the merits of the case" and disposed of the petition with the direction that the petitioners shall be at liberty to apprise the court below in respect of the submissions that they had raised in the present petition seeking for quashment of the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings and can also rely upon the citations which they have referred to in respect of their contentions. The Court below in turn is expected to take into consideration these facts while hearing the matter for framing of charge. After the liberty granted by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner and other accused persons preferred an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court raising all the contentions and referring all the citations as preferred before this Hon'ble Court. Despite there being specific direction of this Hon'ble Court to the learned trial Court to take into consideration all the contentions as well as citations while hearing the matter on framing of charge, the learned trial Court did not adhere to the same and vide order dated 28/01/2017 dismissed the preferred application in a most mechanical manner and framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Hence, this petition.

Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to go abroad and because of the pendency of the present case, he cannot travel abroad. He further submits that a perusal of FIR and charge-sheet does not spell out any specific allegation against the petitioner herein. The allegations levelled by respondent No.2 are absolutely vague and general in nature and do not fulfill the necessary ingredient for constitution of the alleged offences. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Raj Kumar Pali, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the matter was referred to the High Court Mediation Center by this Court, but as per the report of the Mediation Center, the mediation has failed. They further submit that considering the material available on record, charges have been framed against the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons, in which no interference is called for.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, I do not find any good ground for quashment of the charge-sheet and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, considering the nature of dispute, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if already not concluded.