Kamalkant Mani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2017

1 M.Cr.C.No.11605 of 2017

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.

Misc. Criminal Case No.11605/2017
Kamalkant Mani Ors.
vs.
State of M.P. Anr.
——————————————————————————————–

Shri Ankit Saxena, counsel for the applicants.

Shri Aditya Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri B.K. Shukla, counsel for the respondent No.2.

——————————————————————————————–

ORDER

Reserved on : 08/12/2017
Delivered on : 12/12/2017

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing
FIR of Crime No.236/2017 registered at P.S. Harda, District Harda for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and consequential proceedings relating their too.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.03.2017 the complainant non
applicant No.2 lodged the report at Police Station Harda against the
applicants averring that she is legally wedded wife of applicant No.1
Kamalkant Mani. Her marriage was solemnized with applicant No.1
Kamalkant Mani on 16/02/16, applicant No.2 and 3 are Parents-in-law of the
non-applicant No.2. Only two-three days after marriage they started to
demand dowry and harass her. On that report, police registered Crime
No.236/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved from that FIR,
2 M.Cr.C.No.11605 of 2017

applicants filed this petition for quashing FIR of Crime No.236/2017 and
consequential proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that marriage of non
applicant No.2 was solemnized on 16.02.2016 with applicant No.1. She only
lived for a short period till 04.04.2016 with the applicant No.1 who is
husband of the non applicant No.2. Thereafter, she left the matrimonial
house and the family members of the non applicant No.2 on 23.10.2016
came along with some relatives and threatened the applicants and thereafter
the applicant No.1 filed civil suit under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act on
18.11.2016, therefore, non applicant No.2 filed false report against the
applicants, on 17/2/17 hence, the FIR of Crime No.236/2017 be quashed. In
this regard, learned counsel for the applicants also placed reliance on Apex
Court judgments passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar Anr
reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363, Neelu Chopra Anr. v. Bharti reported in
AIR 2009 SC (SUPP) 2950, Kansraj v. State of Punjab reported in AIR
2000 SC 232 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 335

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/ non applicant
No.2 and also the learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 State submitted that Police filed charge sheet against applicants after
investigation of FIR lodged by the non applicant No.2 finding prima facie
case against applicants. Learned counsel for the non applicant No.2 further
submitted that the non applicant No.2 lodged the report against applicants
regarding harassment at Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra much before filing of
application under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act by the applicant No.1
against her. From the FIR, prima facie offence under Section 498A of IPC
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is clearly made out against all
applicants, so FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.

5. This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the
counsels of both the parties. The Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) relied by the learned counsel of the
applicants held as under:-

3 M.Cr.C.No.11605 of 2017

“The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in
the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary or inherent powers do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to
its whim or caprice. The court will not be justified in embarking
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The following
categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court 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.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Sections 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 FIR 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 FIR 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.

4 M.Cr.C.No.11605 of 2017

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

6. This shows that High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash a
FIR, when the allegations made in the FIR 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 and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.

7. The report lodged by the complainant reads as under:-

**eSa , 10 fl)kFkZ dsEil bZ 8 vjsjk dkyksuh] xqyeksgj Hkksiky gky fuoklh
lnkuh ifjlj ‘kadj eafnj ds ikl d`f”k mit eaMh jksM gjnk jgrh gWwa] eqs
esjs lkl llqj ,oa esjs ifr }kjk izrkfMr djus ,oa ngst ekxus ds laca/k
esa ,d fyf[kr vkosnu i is’k djrh gWwa] udy vkosnu fuEukuqlkj gS izfr
Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; Fkkuk gjnk fo”k; fjiksVZ fy[kkus ckcr~ egksn; fuosnu gS
fd eSa , 10 fl)kFkZ dsEil bZ 8 vjsjk dkyksuh xqyeksgj Hkksiky gky
fuoklh lnkuh ifjlj ‘kadj eafnj ds ikl d`f”k mit eaMh jksM gjnk jgrh
gWwa] esjh ‘kknh fnuakd 16-2-2016 dks fgUnw jhfrfjokt vuqlkj deydkar e.kh
firk lhrkjke e.kh mez 35 lky fuoklh , 10 fl)kFkZ dsEil bZ 8 vjsjk
dkyksuh] xqyeksgj Hkksiky ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA ‘kknh ds nks rhu fnu ckn ls gh
esjk ifr deydkar] llqj lhrkjke] lkl Hkkjrh e.kh] uun iwtk ,oa nsoj
fdj.kdkaar ngst dh ekax dks ysdj ‘kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r
djus yxs esjs firkth us vius gSfl;r ds fglkc ls xzgLrh dk leLr lkeku
fQzt] dwyj] okf’kax e’khu] flykbZ e’khu] vYVks dkj] Mªsflax Vscy] Mcy
csM] xksnjst dh vYekjh] ekbdzks osc] Vscy Qsu] ,d lksus dh vaxwBh] lksus dh
psu] lksus ds daxu] lksus dk gkj] dku dh wedh] lksus dh vaxwBh] iSj dh
ik;y] pkanh dk dej can ,oa uxnh 31]000 :- ngst esa fn;s FksA blds ckn
Hkh ifr ,oa llqjky okys ,d ghjs dh vaxwBh] LdkfiZ;ks dkj] ikap yk[k uxnh
,oa Hkksiky jgus ds fy;s ¶ysV ,oa cMh ,ylhMh dh ekax djus yxs rks eSaus
vius eEeh ikik dks ;s lkjh ckrs crkbZ ijarq esjs ikik ls brus jde dh
O;oLFkk ugh agksus ds dkj.k iqu% ngst dh ekax dks ysdj esjs ifr ,oa llqjky
okys eqs ‘kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djus yxs fQj eSaus esjs ikik
dks Qksu yxkdj cqyk;k rks esjk HkkbZ izoh.k vk;k vkSj eqs lkFk ysdj gjnk
vk x;kA fnukad 12-12-2016 dks efgyk ijke’kZ dsUnz gjnk esa cqyk;k Fkk
ftlesa esjs ifr ,oa lkl llqj uaun gjnk vk;s Fks ysfdu ml fnu ijke’kZ
dsUnz can gksus ds dkj.k esjs ek;ds esas essjs ifr] lkl ,oa llqj] uun vk;s rks
essjs firk th ,oa eEeh us dgk dh vki esjh yM+dh dks D;ksa ijs’kku djrs gks
geus rks ‘kknh vkids dgs vuqlkj ngst fn;k gSA rks dgus yxs fd eqs
rks ,d ghjs dh vaxwBh] LdkfiZ;ksa dkj] ikap yk[k udnh ,oa Hkksiky jgus ds
fy;s ¶ysV ,oa cM+h ,ylhMh nksxs rHkh rqEgkjh yM+dh dks ys tk;sxs ojuk
vkt ds ckn viuh yM+dh dks vius ikl gh j[kks ge dHkh ugh ys tk;saxsA
esjs eEeh ikik us dkQh lek;k ij og ugha ekus vkSj pys x;s rc ls eS
vius ek;ds es jg jgh gWwa rks eS vkt vius HkkbZ izoh.k pkSgku ds lkFk fjiksVZ
5 M.Cr.C.No.11605 of 2017

djus vkbZ gWwa fjiksVZ djrh gWwa] dk;Zokgh dh tkosA izkfFkZ;k lk/kuk ef.k ifr
deydkar e.kh eks- 9111637449 gLrk{kj vaxzsth esA**

8. If we examine the FIR in the light of above principle laid down by the
Apex Court, from the FIR offence under Section 498- A of IPC and under
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are prima facie made out against the
applicants. Learned counsel of applicants submitted that respondent No.2
only lived for a short period till 04.04.2016 with the applicant No.1 and
thereafter when applicant No.1 filed civil suit under Section 12 of Hindu
Marriage Act on 18.11.2016 against non applicant No.2 then she filed this
false FIR against the applicants. But learned counsel of the non applicant
No.2 submitted that non applicant No.2 lodged the report before Pariwar
Paramarsh Kendra against applicants regarding harassment much before
filing of application under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act by the
applicant No.1. So only on the basis that non applicant No.2 had lodged the
report against applicants on 16/03/17 after filling of the application under
section 12 of Hindu marriage Act by the applicant No.1; at this stage it can
not be said that the FIR lodged by the non applicant No.2 is false. Learned
counsel of the applicants also submitted that in the FIR it is mentioned that
on 12/12/16 applicants came to Harda and demanded dowry, whereas on that
date applicants did not go to Harda. But whether on 12/12/16 applicants
came to Harda or not is a matter of fact which will require evidence to
decide. So it cannot be determined at this stage.

9. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Apex Court judgement passed
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar Anr, Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand, Neelu Chopra Anr. v. Bharti, Kansraj v. State of Punjab
(supra) but first judgement relates to bail and investigation and not on the
point of quashing of FIR. In the second case, there is no direct allegation
against in-laws in the complaint so the Apex Court quashed the complaint
regarding in-laws while in this case applicants are husband and parents-in-
law of the complainant. In third case there is no specific allegation in
complaint against sister-in-law and unmarried brother-in-law of complainant
and they are residing at different place and neither visited place of incident
nor lived with complainant and her husband. So the Apex Court quashed the
complaint against them holding that their implication in the complaint is to
6 M.Cr.C.No.11605 of 2017

harass and humiliate husband’s relatives and in the fourth case Apex Court
in the appeal after evaluating all the evidence on merits acquitted the
appellant. That judgment also does not relate to quashing of complaint. So
these cases also do not help the applicants much.

10. On the other hand, Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and
others vs. Madan lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases
330 held that High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. must make just and rightful choice – at this stage neither truthfulness
of the allegations levelled by the complainant can be evaluated nor can
weight of defence evidence be determined- Where allegations bring out all
ingredients of charge levelled, and material placed before Court prima facie
shows truthfulness of allegations, trial must proceed even when accused is
successful in raising some suspicion or doubt in allegations levelled- This is
so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the
complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The Apex Court in
the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat Ors. vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in AIR 2013 SC page 52 held that allegations against applicants-
specific not only against husband but also against parents in-law of the
complainant wife- Whether or not those allegations are true- is a matter
which cannot be determined at stage of framing charges, any determination
can take place only at the conclusion of trial. The Apex Court in the case of
M.L.Bhatt vs. M.K.Pandita reported in 2002 (II) MPWN Note 30 also
held that quashing of FIR – High Court is entitled only to examine the
allegations -not to appreciate evidence by sifting material collected during
investigation.

11. In the instant case, it is apparent from the record that after
investigation of the report lodged by non applicant No.2 Police found prima
facie case against the applicants and filed charge sheet against them. From
the FIR offence under Section 498- A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act are prima facie made out. Whether the allegations levelled
by non applicant No.2 in the report are true or not cannot be ascertained at
this stage on evaluating the evidence on merits. Only on the points raised by
7 M.Cr.C.No.11605 of 2017

the learned Counsel for the applicants at this stage it cannot be assumed that
non applicant No.2 lodged false FIR against applicants for harassing them.
So the FIR and the criminal proceedings pending against applicants cannot
be quashed. The applicants are at liberty to raise all pleas before the Trial
Court at appropriate stage.

12. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
(ra)

Digitally signed by RANJEET
AHIRWAL
Date: 2017.12.14 10:28:23 +05’30’

Leave a Comment

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