MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

2nd 498a filed on same Fake drift during a opposite military hire Quashed

High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench during Indore

Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K. Awasthi

M.Cr.C. No. 10858/2017

Anup Agrawal & Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Shri Anup Agrawal, benefaction in person.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, schooled Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Vinod Kuma Bhavsar, schooled warn for the respondent No.2/complainant.


(Passed on Apr 2018 ) The field filed benefaction petition underneath Section 482 of a Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brief ‘The code’) seeking quashment of FIR temperament Crime No. 14/2017 antiquated 06/01/2017 for elect of corruption underneath Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of a IPC purebred during Police-Station-Lasudiya, Distric-Indore and charge-sheet antiquated 27/06/2017 filed in honour of a aforesaid FIR.

2. The required contribution heading to filing of a benefaction petition are that a matrimony of applicant No.1-Anup Agrawal was solemnized with respondent No.2-Trupti Agrawal on 24/04/2014 as per Hindu rituals and customs. Respondent No. 2 done a censure opposite a field alleging that in a matrimony her kin had given ornaments, domicile articles and income of Rs.3.50 Lacs to a applicants. However, after a M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) marriage, all a indicted persons started to harass a respondent No. 2 alleging that her kin had given zero in a matrimony and they demanded income from her. At a time of Diwali festival in a year 2014 a field kick her and she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. On a basement of aforesaid allegations an FIR for elect of corruption underneath Sections 498(A) and 323/34 was purebred opposite a field during Police-Station Lasudiya and after execution of review charge-sheet was filed. In a month of Jun 2015, a applicant was eliminated to Ahemdabad yet a respondent No.2 exclude to accompanied him, given she did not wish to give her pursuit in a ICICI Bank, Indore. Applicant No.1 attempted to immigrate behind to Indore. Respondent No.2 sensitive a applicant No.1-in a mid-August 2014 initial time that she due a debt guilt of approximately Rs.25 Lacs opposite Indore Development Authority prosaic situated in Anandvan (Highrise), Scheme No. 140 and she is profitable an EMI of approximately Rs.25,000/- towards a pronounced loan from Jul 2015. On 01/12/2015, respondent No.2 asked a applicant No.1 to assistance her for Rs. 6,54,080/- to capacitate her to get possession of a aforesaid flat, however, due to a necessity of supports a applicant No.1 was incompetent to assistance a respondent No.2 to compensate a same and given of this respondent No.2 got mad with a applicant No.1 and refused to come behind to a matrimonial home. Applicant No.1 practical for new pursuit and he got his new assignment during Pune yet respondent No.2 refused to come to Pune observant that she can't stay in attribute with a person, M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) who can't arrange income for her when she needs it. On 20/12/2016, a family assembly was organised in Neemuch to solve a pronounced issued. But respondent No.2 did not spin adult on a aforesaid date. Thereafter, field done several attempts for settlement yet they have not perceived any response from respondent No.2. On 27/09/2016, during a residence of family crony of a applicant a family assembly was arranged, in that respondent No.2 alongwith her father and other kin were benefaction in an intensely assertive demeanour and threatened that they would implicate a field in fake box underneath a Domestic Violence and Dowry Prohibition Act in sequence to harass and disparage a field and taint their reputation. They abused applicant Nos. 2 & 4 and attempted to attack a applicant No.1. In this courtesy applicant No.4 lodged a censure opposite a pronounced danger and melancholy in a Police-Station during Neemuch.

READ  Whether Wife is entitled to get increased alimony after an increase in her husband’s salary?

3. On 01/12/2016, respondent No.2 filed a censure opposite a field during a Mahila Thana, Indore alleging that a she was treated with cruelty by a field in sequence to remove a dowry from her parents. There on a field were summoned by a Mahila Thana, Indore. Whereupon a military accessible a matter of a field and respondent No.2 . During conversing record and respondent No.2 could not transparent her box opposite a field and afterwards she sought some time to cruise and to yield justification of her allegations opposite a applicants. On 18/12/2016, another conversing event was conducted, in that they came to a M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) end that a differences have arisen between them and respondent No.2 was concluded to record a petition for retraction of a matrimony by mutual agree underneath Section 13(B) of a Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with a condition that she wanted behind of her effects that might be fibbing during a residence of applicant No.1. On 18/12/2016, a respondent No.2 collected her remaining effects underneath a organisation of a SHO, Mahila Thana from their rented housed situated during Nipaniya, Indore and a Police-Station Mahila Thana filed a closure news before a Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

4. On 06/01/2017, a respondent No.2 again done a fake censure opposite a field with matching contribution during Police-Station-Lasudiya, Indore, where FIR temperament Crime No. 14/2017 got purebred for a corruption underneath Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of a IPC opposite a applicants. Then a applicant No.1 attempted in each probable demeanour to move to a notice of a Police-Station-Lasudiya, Indore that a pronounced FIR had been purebred on a basement of a fake and antagonistic censure and that a pronounced issues between a parties stood resolved, with a created agree of a respondent No.2, during a prior record in a Mahila Thana, Indore, in Dec 2016. However, no mind was paid to a requests of a applicant No.1 and charge-sheet was filed opposite a field before a Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. The aforesaid charge-sheet is totally malafide and bootleg and there is no belligerent for assign of a field are available. Only deceptive and omnibus allegations has been done M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) in a complaint, that are totally fake and concocted, therefore, FIR temperament Crime No. 14/2017 antiquated 06/01/2017 for elect of corruption underneath Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of a IPC purebred during Police-Station-Lasudiya, Distric-Indore and charge-sheet antiquated 27/06/2017 filed in honour of a aforesaid FIR is probable to be quashed.

5. Per contra schooled warn appearing on seductiveness of respondents has upheld a rapist assign on a belligerent that prima facie a allegations leveled opposite a field are done out, therefore, a petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. we have deliberate a opposition contentions lifted on seductiveness of a parties and have perused a papers placed on record along with a benefaction application.

7. The parameters on that a lenience can be shown for sportive powers accessible underneath Section 482 of a Cr.P.C. with honour to matrimonial matters have been laid down by a Apex Court in a box of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 in a following manner:

” 20. Coming to a contribution of this case, when a essence of a FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations opposite Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra solely infrequent anxiety of their names that have been enclosed in a FIR yet small M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) infrequent anxiety of a names of a family members in a matrimonial brawl though claim of active impasse in a matter would not transparent holding knowledge opposite them unaware a fact borne out of knowledge that there is a bent to engage a whole family members of a domicile in a domestic argue holding place in a matrimonial brawl privately if it happens shortly after a wedding.
8. In another authorised attestation by a Supreme Court in a box of Ramesh Rajagopal Vs. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd; (2016) 6 SCC 310, wherein a Hon’ble Court referred to a progressing decision, celebrated in a following manner:-

READ  Whether joint owners of property can be given unequal share in partition?

“15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, 1988 SCC (Cri) 234}, this Court celebrated as follows: (SCC p. 695, para 7) “7. The authorised position is good staid that when a assign during a initial theatre is asked to be quashed, a exam to be practical by a Court is as to possibly a uncontroverted allegations as done prima facie settle a offence. It is also for a probity to take into care any special facilities that seem in a sold box to cruise possibly it is judicious and in a seductiveness of probity to assent a assign to continue.
This is so on a basement that a probity can't be utilized for any ambiguous purpose and where in a opinion of a probity chances of an ultimate self-assurance are dour and, therefore, no useful purpose is expected to be served by permitting a rapist assign to continue, a probity might while holding into care M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) a special contribution of a box also stifle a move even yet it might be during a rough stage.”

9. However, it has been hold by a Apex Court in a box of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotdher, AIR 2013 SC 506 that a energy to forbid a move possibly during a threshold or during an middle theatre of a hearing is fundamental in a High Court on a extended element that in box a allegations done in a FIR or a rapist complaint, as a box might be, prima facie do not divulge a triable offence, there can be no reason as to because a indicted should be done to humour a anguish of authorised proceedings. Thus, such energy would be accessible for practice not usually during a threshold of a rapist move yet also during a comparatively modernized theatre thereof, namely, after framing of assign opposite a accused.

10. It has been hold in a box of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, that where a rapist record is manifestly attended with masculine fide and/or where a move is maliciously instituted with an distant belligerent for wreaking reprisal on a indicted and with a perspective to annoy him due to private and personal grudge, unusual or inherrent powers indifferent to a High Court underneath Section 482 of a Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to stifle a initial information report.

11. In a context of a law laid down by a Apex Court , a plain reading of a FIR lodged by a respondent M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) No.2, goes to uncover that a allegations relating to elect of corruption punishable underneath Section 498(A) of a IPC are omnibus and do not impute to any specific act of a applicants. Although she has done an claim that on 27/04/2014, when they had left to Shimla (H.P.) for their honeymoon, a applicant No.1-taunted her alleging that her father has not given anything in a dowry and on Diwali festival of a year 2014, a field kick her with honour to direct of dowry, yet she has not done any censure per these incidents compartment 2016, that clearly indicates that all these allegations are deceptive and false.

READ  Child Custody to NRI Father

12. On 18/12/2016, during Mahila Thana Indore respondent No.2 done a following statement, that reads as under:-

” I, Trupti W/o Anup Agrawal, give this endeavour currently i.e. on 18/12/2016 after conversing during Mahila Thana, Indore both of us father and mother thinks that a thoughts does not compare and it is not probable for us to live together any more. we wants to lapse my effects from my father and he is concluded to lapse a same. We will send a effects with mutual bargain and we will record a divorce petition before a Court with mutual consent.”

13. The reproduced apportionment creates it transparent that after conversing sessions both a parties came to a end that a differences have arisen between them, therefore, they can't be live together and respondent No.2 was concluded to record a petition for divorce by mutual agree underneath Section 13(B) of a Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In a context of a aforesaid M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) bargain that has been arises between a parties, Mahila Thana Indore filed a closure news of a matter on 13/12/2016.

14. However, on 06/01/2017, a respondent lodged FIR during Police-Station Lasudiya for a same belligerent by suppressing a record of Mahila Thana, Indore. In a FIR lodged during Police-Station-Lasudiya she purported that even after 2-3 conversing sessions, a field persisted for their direct of dowry, that is positively discordant to a record hold during Mahila Thana, Indore. From a move of Mahila Thana, Indore, it is transpired that after 2-3 days of a matrimony respondent No.2 stayed with her husband-Anup Agrawal and sister-in-law-Alka Agrawal during Indore. Applicant No.1-Anup Agrawal due to his send left to Ahemdabad and afterwards to Pune alone for a reasons that respondent No.2 was operative during ICICIU Bank, Indore and she did not go with him. From a impugned FIR, it is transparent that respondent No.2 is vital alone given 23/11/2015 and she has not meddlesome to live with her husband, therefore, it is formidable to believed that a field subjected her to cruelty on a stratagem of direct of dowry. From a matter of a respondent No.2 given before a Mahila Thana, Indore, it is apparent that applicant Nos. 2 & 4 never lived with her, therefore, it can't be supposed that they done any direct of dowry with a respondent No.2 and ill treated her with courtesy to a accomplishment of their demand. After conversing during Mahila Thana, Indore respondent No.2 and applicant No.1-Anup Agrawal, concluded that they will record a M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors..) petition for divorce in essay and a parties were rided for probity record for a reason that a respondent No.2 does not wish to live with applicant No.1 anymore. It is also impending to note that a respondent No.2 has already filed a divorce petition opposite applicant No.1 during family Court, Indore. While Mahila Thana, Indore has filed a closure news on a censure filed by respondent No.2, afterwards registration of FIR opposite a field for a same belligerent during Police-Station Lasudiya is zero yet a perfect abuse of a routine of law.

15. Under these circumstances, a benefaction focus underneath Section 482 of a Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, FIR temperament Crime No. 14/2017 antiquated 06/01/2017 for elect of corruption underneath Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of a IPC purebred during Police-Station-Lasudiya, Distric-Indore and charge-sheet antiquated 27/06/2017 filed in honour of a aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed.

Certified duplicate as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt Digitally sealed by Santosh Kumar Tiwari

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 MyNation KnowledgeBase

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Custody cannt be denied because of some fortuitous circumstance
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation