SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mahesh Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 5 December, 2018

1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

(Mahesh Sahu Ors. vs. State of M.P. Anr.)
Gwalior, Dated : 05.12.2018

Shri Sushil Goswami, Counsel for the applicants.

Shri B.P.S. Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the

respondent No.1/State.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has

been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.429/2017

registered at Police Station Basoda City, District Vidisha

for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section

3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as for quashment of

charge sheet and the criminal proceedings.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present

application in short are that the applicant No.1 is the

husband of the complainant whereas the applicants No.2

and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the

complainant. The applicant No.4 is the uncle-in-law of

the complainant, whereas the applicants No.5 and 6 are

the elder brothers-in-law (Jeth) of the complainant and

applicants No.7 and 8 are the wives of applicants No.5

and 6 (Jethani). The applicants No.9 and 10 are the

sisters-in-law of the complainant.
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

On 23.5.2017, the respondent No.2/complainant

had lodged a report against the applicants on the

allegation that she was married to the applicant No.1 on

22.4.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals.

After the marriage, the applicants started harassing the

complainant. They demand Rs.5,00,000/- and when she

refused to fulfill their demand, then about 8 to 9 months

back when the complainant was pregnant, then her

husband and the other applicants assaulted the

complainant and she was turned out of her matrimonial

house and she gave birth to her child in her parental

home and after the compromise in a Social Panchayat,

the applicant No.1 took her to Bhopal along with him,

where also, she was beaten by the applicants No.1. By

keeping her in dark, the applicant No.1 left the

complainant at Indore and when she made a complaint

of it, the applicant No.1 again compromised the matter

and assured that he would neither demand the dowry

nor would harass the complainant. However, even after

the compromise, the applicant No.1 refused to keep her

with him because of non-fulfillment of demand of
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

Rs.5,00,000/-. On 11.5.2017, when the complainant

went to the house of the applicant No.1, then she was

not allowed to enter inside the house and he instructed

that the complainant should go to village Pachma and on

22.5.2017, the complainant went to village Pachma

where the remaining applicants did not allow the

complainant to enter inside the house and they alleged

that unless and until she brings an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- they would not allow her to stay in her

matrimonial house. It is submitted by the counsel for the

applicants that the applicant No.1 has filed a petition

under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of

divorce and only by way of counterblast the false report

has been lodged. Even otherwise the allegations made

against the applicants are vague, general and omnibus in

nature and it is well established principle of law that the

near and dear relatives of the husband of the

complainant should not be prosecuted on the basis of

general and omnibus allegations and they should be

compelled to face the prosecution only when there are

serious, direct and specific allegations against them and
4
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

the allegations made against the applicants do not fulfill

that qualification. It is further submitted that the

respondents are residing separately and they have been

falsely implicated as they are near and dear relatives of

the applicant No.1.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the

State that when the complainant went to village Pachma,

she was not allowed to enter inside her matrimonial

house and all the applicants threatened that in case their

demand of Rs.5,00,000/- is not fulfilled, they would not

allow the complainant to reside in her matrimonial house

and, therefore, prima facie there are specific allegations

against all the applicants.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The allegations made in the FIR were reiterated by

the complainant in her statement under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. Thus, the allegations made against the applicants

can be bifurcated as under:-

(1) The complainant was married to the

applicant No.1 on 22.4.2015 and immediately

after the marriage all the applicants started
5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

harassing her mentally and physically for

demand of Rs.5,00,000/-.

(2) About 8 to 9 months prior to the date of

lodging of the FIR, when the complainant was

pregnant, then she was turned out of her

matrimonial house and she came to her

parental house, where she gave birth to her

child.

(3) A Panchayat was convened and in that

Panchayat the applicant No.1 entered into a

compromise and, accordingly, the applicant

No.1 took the complainant to Bhopal where he

was working and later on by keeping the

complainant in dark, he left the complainant at

Indore and on complaint made by the

complainant, he again assured that she would

not be treated with cruelty and there would

not be any demand of dowry but still the

applicant No.1 did not allow the complainant

to stay with him.

(4) On 11.5.2017, when the complainant
6
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

went to Bhopal to live along with the applicant

No.1, then she was not allowed to enter inside

his house and she was suggested to go to

village Pachma.

(5) On 22.5.2017, when the complainant

went to village Pachma, then the remaining

applicants did not allow her to enter her inside

the matrimonial house and insisted that unless

and until she brings an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-, she would not be allowed to

stay in her matrimonial house.

So far as the contention of the applicants that the

FIR has been lodged by way of counterblast to the

divorce petition filed by the applicant No.1 is concerned,

the question is no more res integra.

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
7
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

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
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.”

Thus, the findings of the Civil Court are not binding on

the Criminal Court and only because the FIR was lodged

after the institution of divorce petition would not ipso facto

mean that the FIR was lodged by a counterblast to the

divorce petition. On the contrary, it can be presumed that

the complainant was initially interested in saving her

matrimonial life and only when she realized that she has

lost all of her hopes as her husband is not interested in

reconciliation and if she decides to bring misdeeds of her

in-laws to the light by lodging a FIR, then it cannot be said

that the FIR was lodged by way of counterblast. On the

contrary, it shows the bonafide intention of the wife to
8
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

somehow save her married life.

The Supreme Court in the case of Kansraj Vs. State

of Punjab reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207, has held as

under :

“In the light of the evidence in the case we
find substance in the submission of the
learned counsel for the defence that
Respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case
only on the ground of being close relations
of Respondent 2, the husband of the
deceased. For the fault of the husband, the
in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all
cases, be held to be involved in the
demand of dowry. In cases where such
accusations are made, the overt acts
attributed to persons other than the
husband are required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and
implications such relations cannot be held
guilty for the offence relating to dowry
deaths. A tendency has, however,
developed for roping in all relations of the
in-laws of the deceased wives in the
matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of
the prosecution even against the real
culprits. In their over-enthusiasm and
anxiety to seek conviction for maximum
people, the parents of the deceased have
been found to be making efforts for
involving other relations which ultimately
weaken the case of the prosecution even
against the real accused as appears to
have happened in the instant case.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy Vs.

State of West Bengal, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693,

has held as under:
9
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

“8.While we do not find any ground to
interfere with the view taken by the courts
below that the deceased was subjected to
harassment on account of non-fulfillment
of dowry demand, we do find merit in the
submission that possibility of naming all
the family members by way of
exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj
v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, this
Court observed : (SCC p. 215, para 5)
“5………A tendency has, however, developed
for roping in all relations of the in-laws of
the deceased wives in the matters of dowry
deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely
to affect the case of the prosecution even
against the real culprits. In their over
enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction
for maximum people, the parents of the
deceased have been found to be making
efforts for involving other relations which
ultimately weaken the case of the
prosecution even against the real accused
as appears to have happened in the instant
case.”
The Court has, thus, to be careful in
summoning distant relatives without there
being specific material. Only the husband,
his parents or at best close family members
may be expected to demand dowry or to
harass the wife but not distant relations,
unless there is tangible material to support
allegations made against such distant
relations. Mere naming of distant relations is
not enough to summon them in absence of
any specific role and material to support
such role.
9. In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand,
(2007) 15 SCC 415, it was observed : (SCC
p. 419, para 14)
“14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g.
PW 5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of
the deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh
Kr. Singh, brother of the deceased, have
10
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

stated that the deceased Gayatri told them
that dowry was demanded by not only
Raja Lal Singh, but also the appellants
Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi,
but we are of the opinion that it is possible
that the names of Pradip Singh and
Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to
spread the net wide as often happens in
cases like under Sections 498-A and 394
IPC, as has been observed in several
decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh
Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC
388], etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of
Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set
aside the impugned judgments of the High
Court and the trial court insofar as it
relates to them and we direct that they be
released forthwith unless required in
connection with some other case.”
******

11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view
and when a girl dies an unnatural death,
allegation of demand of dowry or
harassment which follows cannot be
weighed in golden scales. At the same time,
omnibus allegation against all family
members particularly against brothers and
sisters and other relatives do not stand on
same footing as husband and parents. In
such case, apart from general allegation of
demand of dowry, the court has to be
satisfied that harassment was also caused
by all the named members.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha

Ors. v. State of Rajasthan Anr. reported in 2013 (1)

UC 155 has held as under:-

“8. We must, at the outset, state that the
High Court’s view on jurisdiction meets with
our approval and we confirm the view.

11

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

However, after a careful perusal of the FIR
and after taking into consideration the
attendant circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2
insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3
deserves to be quashed. The allegations are
extremely general in nature. No specific
role is attributed to each of the appellants.
Respondent 2 has stated that after the
marriage, she resided with her husband at
Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether
appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with
them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took
place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left
her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e.
within a period of seven months.
Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to
file any complaint against the appellants.
Six years after she left the house, the
present FIR is lodged making extremely
vague and general allegations against
appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to
remember that appellant 2 is a married
sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra
ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises
grave doubt about the truthfulness of
allegations made by respondent 2 against
appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any
case, general in nature. We have no doubt
that by making such reckless and vague
allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope
them in this case along with her husband.
We are of the confirmed opinion that
continuation of the criminal proceedings
against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to
this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In
the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR
deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates
to appellants 1, 2 and 3.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 has held as
12
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

under :

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in
this country. Section 498-A IPC was
introduced with avowed object to combat
the menace of harassment to a woman at
the hands of her husband and his relatives.
The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has
lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather
than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the
husband and his relatives arrested under
this provision. In a quite number of cases,
bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers
of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested. “Crime in India
2012 Statistics” published by the National
Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home
Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all
over India during the year 2012 for the
offence under Section 498-A IPC, 9.4%
more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter
of those arrested under this provision in
2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts
that mothers and sisters of the husbands
were liberally included in their arrest net.
Its share is 6% out of the total persons
arrested under the crimes committed under
the Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of
total crimes committed under different
sections of the Penal Code, more than any
other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The
rate of charge-sheeting in cases under
Section 498-A IPC is as high as 93.6%,
while the conviction rate is only 15%, which
is lowest across all heads. As many as
3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which
on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are
likely to result in acquittal.”

13

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand

reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 it has been held by the

Supreme Court as under :

“34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of
the complaint the implications and
consequences are not properly visualised
by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and
his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. To find out the truth
is a Herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after
the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The
courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband’s close relations
who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided would have
an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required
to be scrutinised with great care and
circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long and
protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,
acrimony and bitterness in the relationship
amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by
the complainant if the husband or the
husband’s relations had to remain in jail
even for a few days, it would ruin the
14
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

chances of an amicable settlement
altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.

**

39. When the facts and circumstances of
the case are considered in the background
of legal principles set out in the preceding
paragraphs, then it would be unfair to
compel the appellants to undergo the
rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest
of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash
the complaint against the appellants. As a
result, the impugned judgment of the High
Court is set aside. Consequently, this
appeal is allowed.

In the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs.

Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184, it has been held

by the Supreme Court, as under :

“9. In order to lodge a proper complaint,
mere mention of the sections and the
language of those sections is not the be all
and end all of the matter. What is required
to be brought to the notice of the court is
the particulars of the offence committed by
each and every accused and the role played
by each and every accused in committing
of that offence.

10. When we see the complaint, the
complaint is sadly vague. It does not show
as to which accused has committed what
offence and what is the exact role played
by these appellants in the commission of
offence. There could be said something
against Rajesh, as the allegations are made
against him more precisely but he is no
more and has already expired. Under such
circumstances, it would be an abuse of the
process of law to allow the prosecution to
15
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

continue against the aged parents of
Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on
the basis of a vague and general complaint
which is silent about the precise acts of the
appellants.”

Thus, it is clear that if the allegations are vague and

are general and omnibus in nature, then the relatives of the

husband of the complainant should not be compelled to

face the ordeal of the trial.

In the present case the applicant No.4 is the uncle-in-

law of the complainant whereas the applicants No.5 and 6

are the elder brothers-in-law of the complainant and the

applicants No.7 and 8 are the wives of applicants No.5 and

6. The applicants No.9 and 10 are the married sisters-in-

law of the complainant who are residing separately. The

applicants have filed the documents to show the separate

residence of the applicants No.4 to 10. Although the

applicants No.4 to 8 are the residents of the same village

i.e. village Pachma, therefore, it cannot be said that the

distance between their houses is too far to hold that there

is no possibility of day to day interference of the said

applicants in the family life of the complainant but still in

order to prosecute the near and dear relatives of the

husband of the complainant the allegations must be specific
16
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

and should not be of general and omnibus nature.

In the present case, the allegations against the

applicants No.4 to 10 are that immediately after the

marriage, the complainant was harassed physically and

mentally by the applicant No.4 to 10 also for non-fulfillment

of demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. There is no allegation as to

how the complainant was physically or mentally harassed

by the applicants No.4 to 10. There is no allegation against

the applicants No.4 to 10 that they had ever physically

harassed or maltreated the complainant because of non-

fulfillment of demand of dowry. The allegations are that

when the complainant was turned out of her matrimonial

house, a social Panchayat was convened and the applicant

No.1 had given certain assurances and took her to Bhopal

along with him where he is serving. It is alleged that later

on by keeping the complainant in dark, the applicant No.1

had left the complainant at Indore and when the complaint

was made against him, then again he gave an assurance

that neither he would harass the complainant nor would

maltreat her physically. Thus the second set of allegation is

against the applicant No.1 only. Thereafter, it is alleged that

on 20.2.2017 when the complainant went to her
17
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

matrimonial house at village Pachma, then all the

applicants had restrained her from entering inside the

matrimonial house and had threatened that unless and until

an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is brought, she would not be

allowed to enter inside her matrimonial house. It is true

that the applicants No.4 to 8 are also residing in village

Pachma. However, in the considered opinion of this Court,

this is general allegation against the applicants No.4 to 10,

specifically when the applicants No.9 and 10 are residing

separately in different cities along with their family. The

general and omnibus allegation of not permitting the

complainant to enter inside her matrimonial house because

of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.5,00,000/- is not

sufficient for prosecuting the applicants No.4 to 10 for

offence under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4

of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, FIR in Crime

No.429/2017 registered at Police Station Basoda City,

District Vidisha for offence under Section 498-A of IPC

and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , the

charge sheet as well as the consequential proceedings

against the applicants No.4 to 10 are hereby quashed.

So far as the allegations against the applicants No.2
18
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

and 3 are concerned, they are the father-in-law and

mother-in-law of the complainant. There are allegations

that initially they had harassed the complainant physically

as well as mentally due to non-fulfillment of their demand

of Rs.5,00,000/- but later on, on 22.5.2017 also they did

not allow the complainant to enter inside her matrimonial

house and also extended a threat that unless and until she

brings an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- she will not be allowed

to stay in her matrimonial house. In the considered opinion

of this Court, the status of the mother-in-law and father-in-

law of the complainant is quite different from the status of

other in-laws of the complainant.

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
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.

19

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

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
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
20
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

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.

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.

21

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

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
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 :

22

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

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];
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
23
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

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.

14. From a reading of the complaint, it
cannot be held that even if the allegations
are taken as proved no case is made out.
There are allegations against Respondent
No.2 and his parents for harassing the
complainant which forced her to leave the
matrimonial home. Even now she continues
to be separated from the matrimonial home
as she apprehends lack of security and
safety and proper environment in the
matrimonial home. The question whether
the appellant has infact been harassed and
treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but
at this stage, it cannot be said that no case
is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings
before the trial is not permissible.

15.The decisions referred to in the
judgment of the High Court are
distinguishable. In Neelu Chopra [(2009) 10
SCC 184], the parents of the husband were
too old. The husband Rajesh had died and
main allegations were only against him.
This Court found no cogent material against
the other accused. In Manoj Mahavir
[(2010) 10 SCC 673], the appellant before
this Court was the brother of the daughter-
in-law of the accused who lodged the case
against the accused for theft of jewellery
during pendency of earlier Section 498-A
IPC case. This Court found the said case to
be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra [(2012) 10
SCC 741], case was against brother and
sister of the husband. Divorce had taken
place between the parties. The said cases
neither purport to nor can be read as laying
down an inflexible rule beyond the
principles of quashing which have been
mentioned above and applied to the facts of
the cases therein which are distinguishable.

24

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

In the present case the factual matrix is
different from the said cases. Applying the
settled principles, it cannot be held that
there is no triable case against the
accused.”

The petition filed by the applicants No.2 and 3 for

quashment of the FIR in Crime No.429/2017 registered at

Police Station Basoda City, District Vidisha for offence

under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act as well as for quashment of charge

sheet and the criminal proceedings is hereby dismissed.

So far as the case of applicant No.1 is concerned,

this Court has already come to a conclusion that there

are specific allegations against him prima facie making

out an offence under Section 498-A of IPC and under

Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the

application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the

applicant No.1 for quashment of FIR in Crime

No.429/2017 and for quashment of the charge sheet and

the consequential proceedings is hereby dismissed.

Accordingly, the application is partly allowed and

the application filed by the applicant No.1 Mahesh Sahu,

applicant No.2 Chhakulal Sahu and applicant No.3 Smt.
25
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.2070/2018

Shantibai Sahu is hereby dismissed whereas the

application filed by the applicant No.4 Harisingh Sahu,

applicant No.5 Ramesh Sahu, applicant No.6 Pradeep

Sahu, applicant No.7 Smt. Vimla Sahu, applicant No.8

Smt. Anita Sahu, applicant No.9 Smt. Asha Sahu and

applicant No. 10 Smt. Neera Sahu is hereby allowed.

The applicants No.4 to 10 are discharged.

No order as to costs.

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge

ALOK KUMAR
2018.12.11
18:50:44 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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