Shailendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 July, 2017

1 M.Cr.C. No.4821/2017

17/07/2017 :-
Shri Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Vikas Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Arguments heard finally.
ORDER

The petitioners have preferred the present petition
against the registration of Crime No.1110/2013 at Police
Station-Bhanwarkunwa, Indore for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1981.

2. After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet which is
registered as criminal case No.718/2014 and is pending before
JMFC, Indore.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that there is no
specific allegation and only omnibus allegations have been
made by the complainant regarding demand of dowry and
cruelty. It is further contended that just after a year, the
respondent No.2 has left the matrimonial home and filed
petition under Section 9 of Restitution of Conjugal Rights,
which was decided in his favour, thereafter she filed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of
maintenance and also an application on the similar facts has
been filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violation Act, 2005. The conduct of the complaint
shows that the present complaint has been filed only to harass
the petitioners.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State
2 M.Cr.C. No.4821/2017

opposes the prayer.

5. I have gone through the record.

6. Certain allegations have been made in the complaint
regarding misbehavour, ill-treatment, demand of dowry and
cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry in the
written complaint filed by the complainant. It would be
appropriate to mention the allegation made in her own words,
which reads as under :-

“mlds ckn esjs ifr ‘kSysUnz o lkl lquhrk esgjk eqs de ngst yksus dk
rkuk ekjdj ijs’kku djus yxs rFkk dgrs fd vius firk ds ;gka ls dkj
ysdj vk vxj dkj ugha ns ldrs rks 4 yk[k :i;s uxn ysdj vk rFkk
ngst dh ekax dj eqs vk;s fnu NksVh NksVh ckrksa dks ysdj ekjihV djrs o
‘kkjhfjd o ekufld :i ls izrkfMr djrs tc ;g ckr eSa vius ekrk firk
dks crkrh rks esjs ekrk firk eqs lek nsrs fd /khjs /khjs lc Bhd gks
tk;sxk ?kj u fcxMs lksp dj eSa Hkh ifr o lkl dh izrkM+uk;s lgu jdrh
jgh fdUrq fQj Hkh ifr o lkl ds O;ogkj esa ifjorZu ugha vk;k rFkk ngst
dh ekax dj dgrs fd vxj vius firk ds ;gka ls gekjh ngst dh ekax iwjh
ugha dh rks rqs blh rjg ijs’kku djrs jgsxs tc eSaus vius ifr o lkl ls
dgk fd esjs firk f’k{kd gS rqEgkjh ekax iwjh ugha dj ldrs rks ngst dh
ekax iwjh uk gks ikus ds dkj.k fnukad 16 ebZ 2013 dks esjs ifr o lkl us
dkj vFkok 4 yk[k :i;s dh ekax dks ysdj esjs ifr o lkl us ekjihV dj
llqjky 151 fprkon uoy[kk iSVªksy iEi ds ikl bUnkSj ls fudky fn;k
rFkk dgk fd vxj ngst ysdj vk;sxh rks gh rqs j[ksxs vU;Fkk ugha j[ksxs
vxj fcuk ngst fy;s gekjs ?kj vkbZ rks tkus ls [kRe dj nsxs vkSj nwljh
‘kknh dj ysxsA rHkh ls eSa vius ekrk firk ds ikl mTtSu esa jg jgh gWwa ?kj
uk fcxM+s lksp dj esjs ek;ds okyks }kjk esjs llqjky okyks dks lekus dk
dkQh iz;kl fd;s fdUrq fcuk ngts fy;s esjs llqjky okys eqs j[kus dks
rS;kj ugha gS ngst dh ekax dj llqjky esa esjs ifr ‘kSysUnz o lkl lquhrk
us cgqr izrkfM+r fd;k gSA”

7. Similar is the status of statement of the prosecutrix,
which are also supported by other witnesses, whose
3 M.Cr.C. No.4821/2017

statements have been recorded during investigation by the
police. On the basis of these allegations, charges have been
framed by the learned trial Court.

8. Considering the aforesaid, it is clear that certain
allegations have been made by wife-complainant, which have
to be appreciated and examined by the learned trial Court. The
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extra ordinary in nature
and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be
exercised sparingly and only in the cases where attaining facts
and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of
justice will arise in case of non-use of power. The Court can
interfere with the findings of the Court below in such
exceptional cases where it appears that the orders if not
corrected would be great injustice to someone, where in
passing the order, the Court is capricious and arbitrary or
where order passed by learned Courts below have been based
on no evidence or material at all available on record or order
has been passed on such evidence or material which is wholly
irrelevant or arbitrary. At this stage sifting or weighing of the
evidence is neither permitted nor expected.

9. In Krishnanan Vs. Krishnaveni (1997 AIR SCW 950
: AIR 1997 SC 987) it is held that when the High Court on
examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage
of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required
statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is
failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the
Magistrate requires correction, it is the duty of the High Court
to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of
4 M.Cr.C. No.4821/2017

justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of
justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court
is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under
such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power. It may be
exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of
procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of
proceedings.

10. In Bhajan Lal’s case (State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal and others AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604) Hon’ble the
Supreme Court has prepared a guideline in this regard. Para
108 of the judgment reads thus:

108. 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.

5 M.Cr.C. No.4821/2017

2. Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the F. I. R. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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
concerned Act (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 concerned Act,
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
6 M.Cr.C. No.4821/2017

accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on
Sutanjay Saxena vs. State of M.P. 2016 (1) M.P.J.L.
(Cri.) 528 and Sabra Khan vs. State of M.P. 2016 (2)
M.P.J.L. (Cri.) 120.

12. In both these judgments, the learned Court has held that
in case of husband filed a petition for judicial separation
whereas wife filed FIR making omnibus allegations and the
decree of judicial separation have been granted in favour of the
husband, then, no offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC is
made out against the petitioners. In the second judgment, the
Court has held that in case of absence of any specific allegation
against the family members, the FIR is liable to be quashed
against them. Both these citations are quite distinguishable on
the facts and no help/benefit can be extended to the
petitioners on the basis of these citations.

13. Keeping in view the settled proposition of law and the
evidence available on record against the petitioners, I do not
find any ground to quash the FIR registered at Crime
No.1110/2013 and proceedings pending before the JMFC,
Indore in criminal case No.718/2014 at the present stage. This
Court can not usurp jurisdiction of the trial Court. Present
petition is bereft of merit, liable to be dismissed and is
dismissed accordingly.

(Virender Singh)
Judge
Aiyer*

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *