SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abhinav Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2018


M.Cr.C. No.19500/2017
(Abhinav Verma others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh anr.)

Jabalpur, dated 31.07.2018
Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the


Shri C.K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the

respondent no.1-State.

Shri Anand Mohan Khare, learned counsel for the

respondent no.2.

With the consent of the parties heard finally at the motion


2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by

the applicants for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

Court and to quash the FIR of Crime No.188/2017 registered at

Police Station Vindhya Nagar, District Singrauli, for offence under

Section 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C and Section 3/4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Marriage of respondent no.2 solemnized with applicant

no.1, on 16.04.2016 observing Hindu rites. Applicant nos.2 and

3 are father and mother of the applicant no.1. Within one month

of the marriage, the applicants allegedly taunted the

complainant/respondent no.2 that she brought less dowry. She

was subjected to harassment that her husband used to beat

her; she intimated the incidents to her mother. The accused

persons demanded a four wheeler car and cash. Her father

intimated to the accused persons that whatever he had, he has

already given. The complainant informed the same to her

husband and father-in-law, but they did not stop demanding

dowry. She was harassed and tortured by the applicants. On

07.06.2017, she had gone to Badodra to meet her parents. On

13.07.2017, she returned to Singrauli. When she went to her in-

laws house, the applicant no.1 did not allow her to enter into

the house. Therefore, she was forced to live in N.T.P.C. guest

house. She has been mentally and physically tortured. She was

also pressurized by the in-laws to do immoral act. On this

report, crime was registered at Police Station Vidhya Nagar for

offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of

I.P.C and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.


4. On behalf of the applicants, it is mainly contended that

the FIR and the proceedings initiated by the respondent is

malafide and with malicious motives FIR has been instituted by

the respondent no.2 with ulterior motive of wrecking

vengeance. She lodged the report due to personal grudge.

There is no definite or specific allegation against each of the

applicant. When family Court issued notices to the non-applicant

no.2 on 20.06.2017, the complainant lodged the report.

Therefore, FIR is liable to be quashed. It is also contended that

the applicants have not committed any offence, therefore, they

should not be allowed to undergo the rigmarole of the criminal

trial. The contention in the FIR is totally vague and totally

exaggerated. Therefore, the FIR and subsequent criminal case

RCT No.804/2017 pending before the J.M.F.C., Singrauli is liable

to be quashed.

5. On behalf of the respondent-State, the application is

vehemently opposed and it is contended that the applicants

have harassed and maltreated the respondent no.2; therefore,

respondent no.2 has lodged the report. The statement of the

respondent no.2 also gives details of the allegations; therefore,

it is not a fit case for exercising the powers under Section 482 of



6. On behalf of respondent no.2 a short argument has been

advanced that, from the FIR, it is clear that, when the

complainant returned to her in-laws house on 13.07.2017, she

was thrown out from the marital house. She had to stay in the

guest house of NTPC, which indicates that the cruelty caused by

the applicants, therefore, at this stage nothing requires to be


7. Perused the record and case diary.

8. In case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and

another (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Supreme Court has held

that :-

“Due to the rampant misuse of provision
under Section 498-A, it would be
prudent and wise for a police officer,
that no arrest is made without
reasonable satisfaction.

9. It is observed in the case of Preeti Gupta and another

Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010) 7 SCC 667,

the Supreme Court has held that:-

“Allegations to be scrutinized with great
care and circumspection specially
against husband relatives who live in
different cities. Therefore, offence under
Section 498-A of I.P.C need for serious
re-look genuine cases of dowry
harassment matter are of serious
concerned but exaggeration version of
small incident should not be reflected in
the complaint.”


10. But in the present case, the applicants complaint and the

narration of the witnesses indicate that the atmosphere of the

marital house of the complainant was not peaceful, soon after

her wedding. The complainant was treated with cruelty and

harassed mentally and physically. The incident of harassment is

observed from the fact that when the complainant returned to

the marital house on 13.07.2017 from Badodara, she was not

allowed to enter into the house by the applicants, she had to

live in the guest house of NTPC, which itself indicates that the

torture caused to her by the applicants.

11. The contention that the applicant no.1 has lodged a

matrimonial case on 20.06.2017 under Section 10 of the Hindu

Marriage Act for judicial separation. Notice of the same was

received by the complainant. Subsequent thereto, she lodged

the report on 19.07.2017. It would be appropriate to mention

here that the applicant no.1 has not filed any order-sheet or

copy of any document to show service of notice to the

respondent no.2, which would indicate that on or before

19.07.2017, she was served with the notice of the matrimonial

case. It is also to be considered that there was a strange

relationship immediately after the marriage because of the

demand of dowry and causing of harassment to the

complainant. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to say that

after the case under the Hindu Marriage Act, the complainant

has lodged the FIR to wreck her vengeance against the


12. In this regard reference can be made to in the case of

Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and others reported as

2007 AIR SCW 593, wherein the Apex Court has held that:-

“The quashing of FIR alleging dowry
harassment by drawing adverse
inference against complainant on ground
that, the complaint was filed about six
months after she was forced to leave her
matrimonial home and after filing of
divorce petition by husband was
improper. The Court failed to appreciate
that, the complainant and her family
members were during this period,
making all possible efforts to enter into a
settlement so that the husband would
take her back to the matrimonial home.
If any complaint was made during this
period, there was every possibility of not
entering into any settlement with the
husband. The complaint was filed only
when all efforts to return to the
matrimonial home had failed and
husband had filed a divorce petition.
Filing of a divorce petition in a Civil
Court cannot be a ground to quash
criminal proceeding under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. as it is well settled that criminal
and civil proceedings are separate and
independent and the pendency of a civil
proceeding cannot bring to an end a
criminal proceeding even if they arise
out of the same set of facts”.


13. For the reasons mentioned above, it is not a fit case for

quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceeding pending

before the J.MF.C., Singrauli. Hence, this application is


(Sushil Kumar Palo)

Digitally signed by RAJESH
Date: 2018.08.07 11:23:45

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation