Dr. Sunil Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 October, 2017

-( 1 )- M.Cr.C. No. 13959/2015

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Misc. Criminal Case No. 13959/2015

Dr. Sunil Bhadoriya Others
Versus
State of M.P. Others
———————————————————————————-
Shri Jitendra Sharma, Advocate with Shri Abhishek
Parashar, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri S.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor for the
respondents No.1 to 3/State.
Shri Utkarsh Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Shri
Ravindra Dixit, Advocate for respondent No.4
———————————————————————————-
ORDER

(11.10.2017)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR
registered at Crime No.154/2015 under Sections 498-
A. 294, 506, 354-A 354-C, 34 of IPC read with
Section 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police
Station Mahila Thana, Padav, District Gwalior and
consequential proceedings.

2- The necessary facts for the disposal of the
application in short are that the marriage was
solemnized between the applicant No.1- Dr. Sunil
Bhadoriya and respondent No.4-Smt. Sadhna
Bhadoriya on 04.05.2011 as per hindu rituals and
customs. According to the complaint made by
respondent No.4, husband of the complainant Dr.

-( 2 )- M.Cr.C. No. 13959/2015

Sunil Bhadoriya, mother-in-law Smt. Sagarwati Bai,
father-in-law Chhatrapal Singh Bhadoriya, sisters-in-
law Smt. Kavita Tomar Smt. Rachna Bhadoriya,
brother-in-law Anil Bhadoriya, Ranjeet Singh cousin
brother of husband of applicant started ill-treating
her. Complainant/respondent No.4 lodged an FIR on
21.10.2015 at Mahila Police Station, Padav, district
Gwalior against the applicants alleging that her
mother and brother had given sufficient dowry to the
applicants at the time of her marriage but she was
continuously being harassed by the applicants for
demand of Rs. 14,00,000/- as dowry from her mother
and brothers. Her brother-in-law-Anil Singh and
cousin brother of complainant’s husband, Ranjeet
Singh also tried to molest her. Due to which, she was
forced to live in her parental house. On the basis of
aforesaid report, a criminal case under Sections 498-
A. 294, 506, 354-A 354-C, 34 of IPC read with
Section 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered
and after due investigation, the charg-sheet was filed
against the applicants.

3- Learned counsel for the applicants urged that on
14.08.2015, applicant No.1 submitted an application
to the respondent No.3 alleging that since the
marriage, the behavior of his wife Sadhna Bhadoriya
is cruel towards him and his family members. She
used to threat them about false implication in the
dowry case. After submission of this application, the
family members of the respondent no.4 came to the
house of applicant No.1 and gave him an assurance
that she will remain normally. However, after

-( 3 )- M.Cr.C. No. 13959/2015

sometime respondent No.4 started abnormal behavior
with the applicants. On 13.09.2015 and 21.09.2015,
applicant No.1 submitted applications to the
respondent No.3 respondent No.2 respectively and
requested them that in case his wife makes any false
complaint, then the action may not be taken without
appropriate inquiry. Applicant No.1 had also filed a
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior on
06.10.2015. The family Court issued notice to the
respondent No.4 on 07.10.2015 and fixed the case for
hearing on 31.11.2015. When the notice of the said
petition came into the knowledge of respondent No.1,
on 17.10.2015, as a counter blast, she made a false
report against the applicants regarding demand of
dowry and ill-treatment.

4- Learned counsel for the applicants further
submitted that on the apprehension of false
implication, the applicant No.1 had submitted an
application before the concerned Police Authority
seeking protection against the act of respondent No.4
and the Police Authority had taken cognizance
thereon and fixed the matter for conciliation on
26.10.2015. In the meantime, respondent No.4 lodged
an FIR against the applicants and respondent No.3
without conducting any inquiry has registered the
case and filed the charge-sheet against the applicants.
Applicants No. 3 to 6 are living separately in other
cities, but this fact has not been taken into
consideration by the respondents No.1 to 3.
Accordingly, it is contended that the prosecution has

-( 4 )- M.Cr.C. No. 13959/2015

been launched to misuse the criminal justice system
and it is a fit case for interference.
5- Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondents/State has supported the criminal
prosecution on the ground that primafacie the
allegations leveled against the applicants are made
out, therefore, the application deserves to be
dismissed.

6- Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4
submits that the Supreme Court in the case of
Taramani Parakh vs State of M.P., 2015 (2) JLJ 1
(SC), has held that legitimate prosecution cannot be
stifled by resorting to petition under Section 482 CrPC
as there has to be a trial conducted to arrive at a
conclusion about the participation of accused persons
in the crime. Therefore, the application merits no
consideration and liable to be dismissed.
7- I have considered the rival contentions raised on
behalf of the parties and have perused the documents
placed on record along with the present application.
8- The parameters on which the indulgence can be
shown for exercising powers available under Section
482 CrPC with respect to matrimonial matters have
been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Geeta Mehrotra vs State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC
741 in the following manner :

“20. Coming to the facts of this case,
when the contents of the FIR are perused, it
is apparent that there are no allegations
against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their
names which have been included in the FIR
but mere casual reference of the names of

-( 5 )- M.Cr.C. No. 13959/2015

the family members in a matrimonial
dispute without allegation of active
involvement in the matter would not justify
taking cognizance against them overlooking
the fact borne out of experience that there
is a tendency to involve the entire family
members of the household in the domestic
quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage
to take note of an apt observation of this
Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
[(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this
Court had held that the High Court should
have quashed the complaint arising out of a
matrimonial dispute wherein all family
members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that:
(SCC p. 698, para 12)
“12. There has been an outburst of
matrimonial disputes in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life
and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly
erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission
of heinous crimes in which elders of
the family are also involved with the
result that those who could have
counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless
on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many
other reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement
instead of fighting it out in a court of

-( 6 )- M.Cr.C. No. 13959/2015

law where it takes years and years to
conclude and in that process the
parties lose their ‘young’ days in
chasing their ‘cases’ in different
courts.”

The view taken by the Judges in that matter
was that the courts would not encourage
such disputes.”

9- In another judicial pronouncement by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v.
Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310,
wherein the Hon’ble Court referred to the earlier
decision, observed in the following manner :-

“15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
[Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , this Court observed as
follows: (SCC p. 695, para 7)
“7. The legal position is well settled that
when a prosecution at the initial stage is
asked to be quashed, the test to be applied
by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima
facie establish the offence. It is also for the
court to take into consideration any special
features which appear in a particular case
to consider whether it is expedient and in
the interest of justice to permit a
prosecution to continue. This is so on the
basis that the court cannot be utilised for
any oblique purpose and where in the
opinion of the court chances of an ultimate
conviction are bleak and, therefore, no
useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution to continue,
the court may while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case also
quash the proceeding even though it may be
at a preliminary stage.”

10- In the context of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the plain reading of the FIR dated

-( 7 )- M.Cr.C. No. 13959/2015

21.10.2015 filed by the respondent No.4 shows that
the allegations relating to commission of offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC are omnibus
and do not refer to any specific act of the applicants.
According to the complaint, the respondent No.4 was
subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand
of Rs. 14,00,000/- in dowry by the applicants. It is
undisputed in the instant case that the marriage of
applicant No.1 and respondent No.4 was solemnized
on 04.05.2011. Although the complaint is silent about
the fact as to when complainant left the matrimonial
house. No specific year, time or date is mentioned in
the FIR regarding demand of dowry. On apprehension
of false implication, the applicant No.1 had submitted
application before the Police Authorities seeking
protection against the act of respondent No.4 stating
therein that she is trying to falsely implicate the
applicant No.1 and his family members in the case of
dowry demand. It is also pertinent to note that after
receiving the notice of divorce petition, respondent
No.4 lodged the FIR against applicants for demand of
dowry and harassment. It is also pointed out that
applicants No. 3 to 6 are living separately in other
cities and the documents are also placed on record
regarding their address proof.

11- On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would
be apparent that by considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, prima facie no offence is
made out against the applicants. Hence it is a fit case
in which the inherent powers of this Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may be exercised.

-( 8 )- M.Cr.C. No. 13959/2015

12- Consequently, petition under Sections 482 of the
Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. FIR
dated 21.10.2015 bearing crime No. 154/2015
registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav
Gwalior alleging offences punishable under Sections
498-A. 294, 506, 354-A 354-C, 34 of IPC read with
Section 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the
applicants, is hereby quashed and all the
consequential proceedings flowing out of the said FIR
also stands quashed.

(S.K.Awasthi)
Judge

Aman

Leave a Comment

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