AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners have filed this petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the First Information Report registered at Crime No. 41/2017 of Police
Station Physical, District Shivpuri against them for offences punishable u/s. 498-A and 323 of the IPC.
The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition as disclosed in the FIR are thus:-
On 22.1. 2017 present respondent no. 2/complainant Shikha was married to petitioner no. 1 Yashvardhan Sharma, but about one month after the
marriage, complainant's husband, mother-in-law Sarita Sharma, father-in-law Veerendra Sharma and sister-in-law Parul Vyas started taunting to the
complainant regarding bringing less dowry. On 1.10.2017 in the night, at 9 pm complainant's above mentioned husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law
and sister-in-law came to the house of complainant's father Ramprakash Sharma situated at Ashok Vihar colony, Shivpuri for conciliation, but the
matter could not resolve, then they started beating Shikha by slaps and when Shikha's brother Aakash Sharma tried to intervene then Virendra Sharma
snatched his mouth and at that time Shikha's father Ramprakash and Vatsraj Singh Rathore were present who intervened. On next day i.e. 2.10. 2017
at 9:00 hours Shikha lodged FIR at Police Station Physical, Distirct Shivpuri, then crime was registered and complainant Shikha Sharma and her
brother Aakash Shamma were sent for medical examination to District Hospital, Shivpuri where they were medically examined. After completing
formalities of the investigation chargesheet was filed by the police on 9.10.2017 in the Court of JMFC, Shivpuri for above mentioned offences.
In the petition filed u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C on behalf of petitioners, it is alleged that complainant/respondent no. 2 Shikha lodged a totally false FIR
against petitioners whereas she was actually not any time was physically or mentally harassed or treated with cruelty in relation to dowry.
Complainant's husband, petitioner no. 1 Yashvardhan was serving prior to her marriage in a private company at Indore and after marriage complainant
resided with her husband at Indore and got PGDCA diploma and was serving as accountant in Kalyani Academy Indore. Petitioners no. 2 and 3
respectively father- in law and mother- in- law of the complainant are prior to above mentioned marriage were residing in village Sirsod, District
Shivpuri and complainant's sister- in- law Parul Vyas was married to Anshul Vyas in the year 2013 and she was residing at Ujjain with her husband
and is having a son and petitioner no. 3 never resided with complainant and actually complainant is not desirous to live with her husband and a totally
false and imaginary incident is described in the FIR. At Indore complainant was regularly quarreling with her husband and was not performing her
matrimonial duties and was not preparing food and she voluntarily reached to her father's house. Therefore, it is prayed that after allowing the petition
relating FIR and consequent proceedings pending in the lower court be quashed.
At the outset, it would be significant to mention here that at the time of hearing on the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed that he is
not pressing petition in relation to petitioner no. 1 Yashvardhan Sharma, husband of the complainant, therefore, in preceding paragraphs only discussion
is being made in reference to petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4.
Placing reliance on filed marriage card of the petitioner no. 3 Parul Vyas, it is contended that she was married to Anshul Vyas on 9.5. 2013 and
thereafter she is continuously residing with her husband Anshul Vyas at Ujjain and is having a son named Ahiday born on 1.9. 2016. On placing
reliance on photo copies of Whats App chatting recorded in the cell phone of petitioner no. 1, it is contended that it is clear from above mentioned
chatting details that complainant is having a lover, prior to her marriage, with whom she make chatting on her husband's cell phone. Hard copies of
chatting messages starting from 23.10. 2017 to 24.10. 2017 have been filed.
It is also contended by the appearing counsel for the petitioners that even it is not mentioned in the FIR that in what circumstances and from which
date complainant is residing at father's house and even it is not mentioned in the FIR that her husband has deserted her and similarly no details
regarding alleged dowry demand have been mentioned in the FIR. Hence placing reliance on the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P.
and Anr; AIR 2013 SC 181, Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr; AIR 2010 SC 3363 and judgment of of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Criminal Appeal No. 1709/2011 judgment dated 2.9.2011 ( Bhushan Kumar Meen v. State of Punjab and Ors.), it is prayed that relating FIR and
further proceedings in relation to it be quashed in relation to petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4.
Above mentioned prayer has been opposed by the appearing counsel on behalf of respondent no. 1 and counsel for respondent no.2. The appearing
counsel for respondent no. 2 placing reliance on photo-copies of the certified copies of the Hindu Marriage Act Case No. 42/2018 pending in the court
of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain contends that petitioner no. 3 Parul Vyas from 10.7. 2017 is not living at her matrimonial house in Ujjain and is
residing at her father Veerendra Sharma's house situated at Shaktipuram Colony, Shivpuri. Therefore, her husband Anshul Vyas has filed application
u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Parul which is pending in relating court from 28.2. 2018. Regarding
alleged photo-copies of complainant's chatting on her husband's cell phone, it is argued that complainant Shikha is educated up to M.Com and got
PGDCA diploma and allegedly was serving and it is clear that on 2.10. 2017 complainant lodged FIR against her husband and his family members at
Police Station Physical, District Shivpuri, whereas alleged chatting are related to dates 23.10.2017 and 24.10. 2017 and a post graduate degree holder
wife would not be such a fool who would chat with her lover on her husband's cell phone. Therefore, it is argued that alleged chatting is, prima facie,
fabricated by the husband on his phone which could not be believed as FIR by complainant was lodged on 2.10. 2017. Therefore, dismissal of the
petition is prayed.
In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. (supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 17 of
its judgment as follows:-
“ Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the
complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither the
FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned
Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Section
498 A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly
not living with the family of the complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not
to have relegated the sister in law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was
allowedâ€.
From perusal of the case diary and the police statements of the complainant, his father and brother it appears that they have stated that
complainant was sent to her father's house by the present petitioners, but even no any date is mentioned wherefrom complainant is living at her
father's house. It is also stated in relating statements that thereafter on 1.10.2017 in the night at 9 pm complainant's husband Yashvardhan, his father
Veerendra, his mother Sareeta and his sister Parul reached to the house of father of the complainant for conciliation and omnibus allegations are made
in the statements that all the present petitioners gave beating to complainant by slaps and only veerendra snatched on face of complainant's brother
Aakash. It appear from the MLC's of complainant Shikha and her brother that contusion of left elbow joint and an abrasion on her left forearm were
found by the doctor and her both injuries were of simple and similarly Aakash was having a contusion on left cheek and an abrasion on left side of his
neck and his both injuries were also of simple nature.
Had the complainant been beaten by four persons, then number of injuries would have been more than two. Even if it is assumed that after the
date 10.7. 2017 petitioner no. 3 Parul Vyas is residing at her father's house at Shivpuri, then it does not appear natural and believable that along with
petitioners no. 1 and 2 mother and sister of the husband would go to their in-law's house for conciliation. In the light of above mentioned citations
and in absence of any details regarding alleged harassment or cruel treatment regarding dowry demand, prima facie, it appears that petitioner no. 3
Smt. Sarita Sharma and petitioner no. 4 Parul Vyas have falsely been implicated in the crime at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle
her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic Bickering while settling down in her matrimonial surrounding and the FIR did not
disclose the commission of any offence by petitioners no. 3 and 4, but as regarding petitioner no. 2 Veerendra is concerned there is a specific
allegation in the FIR against him that he snatched over the complainant's brother Aakash and in medical examination of Aakash, injuries have been
found on his face. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances it could not be observed that FIR is not disclosing any offence against petitioner no. 2
Veerendra Sharma.
The disputed fact that actually present petitioner no.2 Veerendra resides at village Sirsod of District Shivpuri, is a disputed fact which could be
established during evidence led before the trial court.
As the complainant lodged FIR on 2.10. 2017, the photo-copies relating to chatting dated 23. 10. 2017 and 24.10.2017, prima facie, appears to be
unnatural and unbelievable.
In the result, it appears that present petition appears to be worthy of partial acceptance in relation to petitioner no. 3 Smt. Sarita and petitioner no.
4 Parul Vyas as there is no specific allegation against them in the FIR, therefore, relating FIR and consequent criminal proceedings continued before
relating court against petitioner no.3 Smt Sarita and petitioner no. 4 Parul Vyas are worthy of quashment.
Consequently, the petition filed u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C in relation to petitioner no. 1 Yashvardhan Sharma and his father petitioner no. 2 Veerendra
Sharma is dismissed, but the relating petition is partially allowed in reference to petitioner no. 3 Smt. Sarita and petitioner no. 4 Parual Vyas.
Consequently, it is ordered that the relating FIR and resultant criminal proceedings pending before court concerned are quashed, so far as, it relates to
present petitioner no. 3 Smt. Sarita wife of Veerendra Sharma and petitioner no. 4 Parul Vyas wife of Anshul Vyas.
Copy of this order be immediately sent to the relating trial court.