SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Vimla Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 20 February, 2018

1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated : 20.02.2018
Shri Vijay Sundaram, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.V.S. Ghuraiya, Public Prosecutor for the
respondents No.1 and 2/State.

Heard on the question of admission.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.611/2017 registered
by Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior for offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present
application in short are that the respondent No.3 made an
oral complaint to the effect that she was married to the
applicant No.3 on 1.7.2014 as per Hindu rites and rituals.
Immediately after her marriage, the applicants started
beating her and harassing her on the question of bringing
less dowry and they were demanding Rs.10,00,000/-. On
8.6.2017, she went back to her maternal home and on
3.7.2017 her brother received a phone call from the
applicants that the respondent No.3 may be left in her
matrimonial house. Accordingly, the brother of the
respondent No.3 brought her to the matrimonial house, at
that time also the applicants had enquired that whether the
respondent No.3 had brought the money or not. When she
replied that her father does not have so much of money,
then they started assaulting her. The applicant No.1 caught
hold of her hand, whereas the applicants No.2 and 3
assaulted her by fists and blows. They also restrained the
respondent No.3 to talk to her relatives on phone and food
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

was also not given to her. Thereafter somehow she
informed her brother and informed him that she is being
beaten by the applicants. On 18 th July, she came to her
maternal home at Dabra. On the basis of this complaint,
the police has registered the FIR for offence punishable
under Section 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that
in fact the applicants have been falsely implicated. The
applicants had already expressed by making written
complaint to the police authorities that they may be falsely
implicated by the respondent No.3. The applicant No.3 has
also filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage
Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and the FIR has been
lodged on false allegations. It is further submitted that as
no cause of action has arisen at Dabra, therefore, the Police
Station Dabra has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate
the matter and even if the entire allegations are accepted,
then only Police Station at Gwalior will have jurisdiction to
investigate the matter.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the applicants.

So far as the territorial jurisdiction of the police
station is concerned, it is well established principle of law
that the FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that
the police station which has recorded the FIR has no
territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter. If the
Investigating Officer comes to a conclusion that it has no
territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter, then he has
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

to transfer the FIR to the police station which has the
jurisdiction to investigate.

So far as the physical and mental harassment are
concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita
Kumari Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1
has held that where the FIR discloses the commission of
cognizable offence, then it is obligatory on the part of the
police authorities to register the FIR. If the allegations
made in the FIR are considered in the light of the law laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita
Kumari (supra), then it is clear that it is clearly
mentioned by the respondent No.3 that immediately after
the marriage the applicants started harassing her physically
and mentally on the question of bringing less dowry. On
3.7.2017, when she came back to her matrimonial house,
again a demand of dowry was made and when she refused
that her father does not have so much of money so as to
fulfill their demand, then she was beaten by all the three
applicants. She was not allowed to talk to her parents and
even the food was not given to her.

The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh
v. State of M.P. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held
as under:-

“10. The law relating to quashing is well
settled. If the allegations are absurd or do
not make out any case or if it can be held
that there is abuse of process of law, the
proceedings can be quashed but if there is
a triable case the Court does not go into
reliability or otherwise of the version or the
4
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

counter-version. In matrimonial cases, the
Courts have to be cautious when omnibus
allegations are made particularly against
relatives who are not generally concerned
with the affairs of the couple. We may refer
to the decisions of this Court dealing with
the issue.

11. Referring to earlier decisions, in Amit
Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC
460, it was observed (SCC pp. 482-84, para

27):

“27.1. Though there are no limits of
the powers of the Court under Section 482
of the Code but the more the power, the
more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The
power of quashing criminal proceedings,
particularly, the charge framed in terms of
Section 228 of the Code should be
exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of
rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the test
as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made from the record of the
case and the documents submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence
or not. If the allegations are so patently
absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a
conclusion and where the basic ingredients
of a criminal offence are not satisfied then
the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not
unduly interfere. No meticulous
examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in
conviction or not at the stage of framing of
charge or quashing of charge.

27.4. Where the exercise of such
power is absolutely essential to prevent
patent miscarriage of justice and for
5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even
in such cases, the High Court should be
loath to interfere, at the threshold, to
throttle the prosecution in exercise of its
inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an express legal
bar enacted in any of the provisions of the
Code or any specific law in force to the very
initiation or institution and continuance of
such criminal proceedings, such a bar is
intended to provide specific protection to an
accused.

27.6. The Court has a duty to balance
the freedom of a person and the right of
the complainant or prosecution to
investigate and prosecute the offender.

27.7. The process of the court cannot
be permitted to be used for an oblique or
ultimate/ulterior purpose.

27.8. Where the allegations made and
as they appeared from the record and
documents annexed therewith to
predominantly give rise and constitute a
“civil wrong” with no “element of
criminality” and does not satisfy the basic
ingredients of a criminal offence, the court
may be justified in quashing the charge.
Even in such cases, the court would not
embark upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.

27.9. Another very significant caution
that the courts have to observe is that it
cannot examine the facts, evidence and
materials on record to determine whether
there is sufficient material on the basis of
which the case would end in a conviction;
the court is concerned primarily with the
allegations taken as a whole whether they
will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an
abuse of the process of court leading to
injustice.

6

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

27.10. It is neither necessary nor is
the court called upon to hold a full-fledged
enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected
by the investigating agencies to find out
whether it is a case of acquittal or
conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give rise to a
civil claim and also amount to an offence,
merely because a civil claim is
maintainable, does not mean that a
criminal complaint cannot be maintained.

27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 228 and/or under Section
482, the Court cannot take into
consideration external materials given by
an accused for reaching the conclusion that
no offence was disclosed or that there was
possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to
consider the record and documents
annexed therewith by the prosecution.

27.13. Quashing of a charge is an
exception to the rule of continuous
prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be more
inclined to permit continuation of
prosecution rather than its quashing at that
initial stage. The Court is not expected to
marshal the records with a view to decide
admissibility and reliability of the
documents or records but is an opinion
formed prima facie.

27.14. Where the charge-sheet,
report under Section 173(2) of the Code,
suffers from fundamental legal defects, the
Court may be well within its jurisdiction to
frame a charge.

27.15. Coupled with any or all of the
above, where the Court finds that it would
amount to abuse of process of the Code or
that the interest of justice favours,
otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae
7
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the courts
exist. (Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar
Guha [(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri)
283 : AIR 1982 SC 949]; Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 234]; Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC
(Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892]; Rupan Deol
Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6
SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059]; G. Sagar
Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 513]; Ajay Mitra v. State of
M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
703]; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 1400 : AIR 1998 SC 128]; State of
U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 497]; Ganesh Narayan
Hegde v. S. Bangarappa [(1995) 4 SCC 41 :

1995 SCC (Cri) 634]; Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 283]; Medchl Chemicals
Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000)
3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 : AIR 2000
SC 1869]; Shakson Belthissor v. State of
Kerala [(2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri) 1412]; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State
of U.P. [(2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 356]; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v.
Peddi Ravindra Babu [(2009) 11 SCC 203 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297]; Sheonandan
Paswan v. State of Bihar [(1987) 1 SCC 288
: 1987 SCC (Cri) 82]; State of Bihar v. P.P.
Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 192 : AIR 1991 SC 1260];

Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar [(2001) 2
SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275]; M. 8
MCRC.6606/2015 Krishnan v. Vijay Singh
[(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19];

8

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

Savita v. State of Rajasthan [(2005) 12
SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571] and
S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat [(2001) 7
SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC
(LS) 1201]).

27.16. These are the principles which
individually and preferably cumulatively
(one or more) be taken into consideration
as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and
wide plenitude and jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code by the High Court.
Where the factual foundation for an offence
has been laid down, the courts should be
reluctant and should not hasten to quash
the proceedings even on the premise that
one or two ingredients have not been
stated or do not appear to be satisfied if
there is substantial compliance with the
requirements of the offence.”

So far as the question of filing of the application under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it is clear that
the findings given by the Civil Court are not binding on the
Criminal Court.

The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha vs.
Rameshwari Devi Ors. reported in 2007(12) SCC 369
has held as under:

“16. It is pertinent to note that the
complaint was filed only when all efforts to
return to the matrimonial home had failed
and Respondent 2 husband had filed a
divorce petition under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in
our view, filing of a divorce petition in a
civil court cannot be a ground to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482 of
the Code as it is well settled that criminal
and civil proceedings are separate and
independent and the pendency of a civil
9
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.22444/2017
(Smt. Vimla Devi Ors. vs. State of M.P.)

proceeding cannot bring to an end a
criminal proceeding even if they arise out
of the same set of facts. Such being the
position, we are, therefore, of the view
that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 482 of the Code has
gone beyond the allegations made in the
FIR and has acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court
was not justified in quashing the FIR by
going beyond the allegations made in the
FIR or by relying on extraneous
considerations.”

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
FIR cannot be quashed. From the documents which have
been placed on record, it appears that the police after
concluding the investigation has filed the charge sheet. The
applicants have not prayed for quashment of the charge
sheet.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
FIR in Crime No.611/2017 registered by Police Station
Dabra, District Gwalior for offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC against the applicants
cannot be quashed.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby
dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge

Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR

Date: 2018.02.21 19:00:40 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh