SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anup Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2018

1

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Bench at Indore

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

M.Cr.C. No. 10858/2017
Anup Agrawal Ors.
vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh Ors.
——————————————————————-
Shri Anup Agrawal, present in person.
Mrs. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Vinod Kuma Bhavsar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/complainant.
—————————————————————————-
ORDER

(Passed on April 2018 )
The applicants filed instant petition under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘The code’)
seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 14/2017 dated
06/01/2017 for commission of offence under Sections 498(A)
and 323/34 of the IPC registered at Police-Station-Lasudiya,
Distric-Indore and charge-sheet dated 27/06/2017 filed in
respect of the aforesaid FIR.

2. The necessary facts leading to filing of the instant
petition are that the marriage 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
made a complaint against the applicants alleging that in the
marriage her parents had given ornaments, household articles
and cash of Rs.3.50 Lacs to the applicants. However, after the
2

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

marriage, all the accused persons started to harass the
respondent No. 2 alleging that her parents had given nothing in
the marriage and they demanded money from her. At the time
of Diwali festival in the year 2014 the applicants beat her and
she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. On the basis of
aforesaid allegations an FIR for commission of offence under
Sections 498(A) and 323/34 was registered against the
applicants at Police-Station Lasudiya and after completion of
investigation charge-sheet was filed. In the month of June 2015,
the applicant was transferred to Ahemdabad but the respondent
No.2 refuse to accompanied him, since she did not want to give
her job in the ICICI Bank, Indore. Applicant No.1 tried to
relocate back to Indore. Respondent No.2 informed the
applicant No.1-in the mid-August 2014 first time that she owed
a debt liability of approximately Rs.25 Lacs against Indore
Development Authority flat situated in Anandvan (Highrise),
Scheme No. 140 and she is paying an EMI of approximately
Rs.25,000/- towards the said loan from July 2015. On
01/12/2015, respondent No.2 asked the applicant No.1 to help
her for Rs. 6,54,080/- to enable her to get possession of the
aforesaid flat, however, due to a shortage of funds the applicant
No.1 was unable to help the respondent No.2 to pay the same
and because of this respondent No.2 got furious with the
applicant No.1 and refused to come back to the matrimonial
home. Applicant No.1 applied for new job and he got his new
assignment at Pune but respondent No.2 refused to come to
Pune saying that she cannot stay in relationship with a person,
3

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

who cannot arrange money for her when she needs it. On
20/12/2016, a family meeting was arranged in Neemuch to
resolve the said issued. But respondent No.2 did not turn up on
the aforesaid date. Thereafter, applicants made several attempts
for reconciliation but they have not received any response from
respondent No.2. On 27/09/2016, at the house of family friend
of the applicant a family meeting was arranged, in which
respondent No.2 alongwith her father and other relatives were
present in an extremely aggressive manner and threatened that
they would implicate the applicants in false case under the
Domestic Violence and Dowry Prohibition Act in order to
harass and humiliate the applicants and tarnish their reputation.
They abused applicant Nos. 2 4 and attempted to assault the
applicant No.1. In this regard applicant No.4 lodged a
complaint against the said intimidation and threatening in the
Police-Station at Neemuch.

3. On 01/12/2016, respondent No.2 filed a complaint
against the applicants at the Mahila Thana, Indore alleging that
the she was treated with cruelty by the applicants in order to
extract the dowry from her parents. There upon the applicants
were summoned by the Mahila Thana, Indore. Whereupon the
police recorded the statement of the applicants and respondent
No.2 . During counseling proceedings and respondent No.2
could not substantiate her case against the applicants and then
she sought some time to think and to provide evidence of her
allegations against the applicants. On 18/12/2016, another
counseling session was conducted, in which they came to the
4

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

conclusion that the differences have arisen between them and
respondent No.2 was agreed to file a petition for dissolution of
the marriage by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the condition that she wanted
back of her belongings that may be lying at the house of
applicant No.1. On 18/12/2016, the respondent No.2 collected
her remaining belongings under the supervision of the SHO,
Mahila Thana from their rented housed situated at Nipaniya,
Indore and the Police-Station Mahila Thana filed a closure
report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

4. On 06/01/2017, the respondent No.2 again made a
false complaint against the applicants with identical facts at
Police-Station-Lasudiya, Indore, where FIR bearing Crime No.
14/2017 got registered for the offence under Sections 498(A)
and 323/34 of the IPC against the applicants. Then the applicant
No.1 tried in every possible manner to bring to the notice of the
Police-Station-Lasudiya, Indore that the said FIR had been
registered on the basis of a false and malicious complaint and
that the said issues between the parties stood resolved, with the
written consent of the respondent No.2, during the previous
proceedings in the Mahila Thana, Indore, in December 2016.
However, no heed was paid to the requests of the applicant
No.1 and charge-sheet was filed against the applicants before
the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore. The
aforesaid charge-sheet is completely malafide and illegal and
there is no ground for prosecution of the applicants are
available. Only vague and omnibus allegations has been made
5

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

in the complaint, which are totally false and concocted,
therefore, FIR bearing Crime No. 14/2017 dated 06/01/2017 for
commission of offence under Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of
the IPC registered at Police-Station-Lasudiya, Distric-Indore
and charge-sheet dated 27/06/2017 filed in respect of the
aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents has supported the criminal prosecution on the
ground that prima facie the allegations levelled against the
applicants are made out, therefore, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.

6. 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.

7. The parameters on which the indulgence can be shown
for exercising powers available under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. 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
6

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

casual reference of the names of 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 specifically if it happens
soon after the wedding.

8. In another judicial pronouncement by the Supreme
Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal Vs. 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 Vs.
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
7

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

the special facts of a case also quash the
proceeding even though it may be at a
preliminary stage.”

9. However, it has been held by the Apex Court in the
case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotdher,
AIR 2013 SC 506 that the power to interdict a proceeding
either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is
inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the
allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as the
case may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence, there
can be no reason as to why the accused should be made to
suffer the agony of legal proceedings. Thus, such power would
be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal
proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof,
namely, after framing of charge against the accused.

10. It has been held in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, that where a criminal
proceedings is manifestly attended with male 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, extraordinary or
inherrent powers reserved to the High Court under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash
the first information report.

11. In the context of the law laid down by the Apex
Court , the plain reading of the FIR lodged by the respondent
8

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

No.2, goes to show that the allegations relating to commission
of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC are
omnibus and do not refer to any specific act of the applicants.
Although she has made an allegation that on 27/04/2014, when
they had gone to Shimla (H.P.) for their honeymoon, the
applicant No.1-taunted her alleging that her father has not
given anything in the dowry and on Diwali festival of the year
2014, the applicants beat her with respect to demand of dowry,
but she has not made any complaint regarding these incidents
till 2016, which clearly indicates that all these allegations are
vague and false.

12. On 18/12/2016, at Mahila Thana Indore respondent No.2
made the following statement, which reads as under:-

” I, Trupti W/o Anup Agrawal, give this undertaking
today i.e. on 18/12/2016 after counseling at Mahila Thana,
Indore both of us husband and wife thinks that our thoughts
does not match and it is not possible for us to live together any
more. I wants to return my belongings from my husband and he
is agreed to return the same. We will transfer our belongings
with mutual understanding and we will file a divorce petition
before the Court with mutual consent.”

13. The reproduced portion makes it clear that after
counseling sessions both the parties came to the conclusion that
the differences have arisen between them, therefore, they
cannot be live together and respondent No.2 was agreed to file a
petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the context of the aforesaid
9

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

understanding which has been arises between the parties,
Mahila Thana Indore filed a closure report of the matter on
13/12/2016.

14. However, on 06/01/2017, the respondent lodged FIR at
Police-Station Lasudiya for the same ground by suppressing
the proceedings of Mahila Thana, Indore. In the FIR lodged at
Police-Station-Lasudiya she alleged that even after 2-3
counseling sessions, the applicants persisted for their demand of
dowry, which is absolutely contrary to the proceedings held at
Mahila Thana, Indore. From the proceeding of Mahila Thana,
Indore, it is transpired that after 2-3 days of the marriage
respondent No.2 stayed with her husband-Anup Agrawal and
sister-in-law-Alka Agrawal at Indore. Applicant No.1-Anup
Agrawal due to his transfer left to Ahemdabad and then to Pune
alone for the reasons that respondent No.2 was working at
ICICIU Bank, Indore and she did not go with him. From the
impugned FIR, it is clear that respondent No.2 is living
separately since 23/11/2015 and she has not interested to live
with her husband, therefore, it is difficult to believed that the
applicants subjected her to cruelty on the pretext of demand of
dowry. From the statement of the respondent No.2 given before
the Mahila Thana, Indore, it is apparent that applicant Nos. 2
4 never lived with her, therefore, it cannot be accepted that
they made any demand of dowry with the respondent No.2 and
ill treated her with regard to the fulfillment of their demand.
After counseling at Mahila Thana, Indore respondent No.2 and
applicant No.1-Anup Agrawal, agreed that they will file a
10

M.Cr.C.No10858/2017 (Anup Agrawal Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Ors..)

petition for divorce in writing and the parties were rided for
court proceedings for the reason that the respondent No.2 does
not want to live with applicant No.1 anymore. It is also
pertinent to note that the respondent No.2 has already filed a
divorce petition against applicant No.1 at family Court, Indore.
While Mahila Thana, Indore has filed a closure report on the
complaint filed by respondent No.2, then registration of FIR
against the applicants for the same ground at Police-Station
Lasudiya is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law.

15. Under these circumstances, the present application
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently,
FIR bearing Crime No. 14/2017 dated 06/01/2017 for
commission of offence under Sections 498(A) and 323/34 of
the IPC registered at Police-Station-Lasudiya, Distric-Indore
and charge-sheet dated 27/06/2017 filed in respect of the
aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(S.K. Awasthi)
Judge

skt

Digitally signed by
Santosh Kumar
Tiwari
Date: 2018.04.17
10:30:08 +05’30’

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