SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rahul vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2018


M.CR.C NO.12971 OF 2016

Rahul S/o Poonam Chand Parihar
Poonamchand S/o Mannaji Parihar
Hiru Bai W/o Poonamchand
State of Madhya Pradesh

Shri SK Vyas, learned senior counsel with Shri
Aniruddh Gokhale for the petitioner.
Shri Padmnab Saxena, learned counsel for the
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the


(Delivered on 09/08/2018)
The petitioners who are husband and parents-in-law of
the deceased have preferred this petition for quashment of
FIR registered at crime no.277/2016 at police station
Dharampuri District Dhar for the offence under section
304-B of the IPC.

Facts in brief are that the deceased Nirmala @ Reena
married to petitioner no.1 Rahul in the year 2011. She
committed suicide by jumping into a river on 16.09.2016.
Her dead body was recovered on 18.09.2016. Her parents
alleged that since after the marriage, the petitioners were
torturing and ill-treating her on account of her failure of
bringing sufficient dowry. They were demanding motor-
cycle and Rs.1,00,000/- and also Rs.50,000/- for perusing
B.ed course. They were torturing her physically and
mentally. They were also taunting and harassing her on
account of her infertility as she could not conceive.
Perturbed by their continuous harassment and
misbehavior, she committed suicide.

The petitioners have preferred this petition on the
ground that the allegations made against them are false
and frivolous. There is no legal evidence to connect them
with the crime. They are respectable members of the
society. Petitioner No.1 Rahul possesses degrees like B.Sc.,
B.E. and D.Ed. and was a teacher by profession. Petitioner
nos.2 and 3 are his parents. Petitioner no.2 is a Patwari
Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are old aged persons and are
suffering from various ailments. The deceased was 12 th
pass at the time of marriage. They took full responsibility of
her education and made her pursue further education. She
was made to pursue graduation (B.Sc.) and D.Ed. At the
time of death, she was pursuing D.Ed. second year for
which petitioner no.1 had paid fee to the tune of
Rs.25,000/- via demand draft dated 16.09.2015. The
petitioners took full care of her ailment, as she could not
conceive. They provided her best medical facilities
available, therefore, allegations regarding demand of
dowry are false.

It is further submitted that the deceased left their
home on 13.09.2016 to attend religious ceremony at her
uncle’s place at village Nagalwadi and stayed there till
15.09.2016 and thereafter, she never returned to their
house. First of all father of the deceased lodged missing
persons report no.17/2016 at police station Dhamnod on
16.09.2016 simply stating that the deceased is missing
from the house. After recovery of body, father again lodged
a Merg intimation on 18.09.2016, which was registered as
Dehati Merg No.0/2016 under section 174 of the Cr.P.C. On
both these occasions no allegations have been made
against the petitioners. During investigation, the police
recorded statement of one Moh. Khan along with some
other witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C, who
claimed that on the date of incident when he was feeding
fishes from the bridge of Narmada river, a lady aged
around 26-27 years was sitting there crying. She had
covered her face by scarf and was talking to someone on
mobile. She stated that Rakesh, I will lay my life for you
(ajkds’k eSa rqEgkjs fy;s tku ns nqWaxh ), which shows that
she was having affair and on account of her failure, she
committed suicide. The parents of the deceased has made
allegations against the petitioners to save themselves from
social defame and embarrassment, which would have been
caused due to illicit affair of their daughter. All these are
sufficient to establish that the allegations made by the
parents of the prosecutrix and the prosecution based upon
such allegations are false and baseless, therefore, it is
prayed that FIR no.0277 and all subsequent proceedings
taken thereunder be quashed.

Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer
stating that in their police statement parents of the
deceased and other witnesses have made certain
allegations regarding demand of dowry and that deceased
was subjected to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of
such demand. This prima-facie sufficient to constitute the
offence. The petition has merits, therefore, it be dismissed.
I have considered rival contentions of the parties.
The power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in
nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power
has to be exercised sparingly and only in the cases where
attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities
of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use of
power. The Court can interfere in such exceptional cases
where it appears from the face of the record that the
prosecution is totally unwarranted for. There has to be a
material error manifest from the record that results in
miscarriage of justice. At this stage sifting and weighing of
the evidence is neither permitted nor expected and the
Court need not enter into meticulous consideration of
evidence and materials at this stage.

Guiding principles of use of such power have been well

defined by the Hon’be Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992
SUPREME COURT 604. Para 108 of the judgment reads thus:

108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the

2. Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/ or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala 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.

In the present case, Bhagwan Singh and Chandubai
(father and mother of the deceased), Sangeeta (sister),
Prakash, Gorav and Rajesh (cousins) of the deceased have
made certain allegations regarding demand of dowry and
alleged that as parents could not fulfill their demand they
subjected her to cruelty. They were demanding motor cycle
and Rs.1,00,000/-. They were harassing, torturing and ill-
treating her as they could not fulfill their demand. They
have also stated that they were taunting and torturing her
on account of her infertility. All these allegations made in
the police statement are prima facie sufficient to prosecute
the petitioners.

It is well settled that the documents of the defendants
shall not be taken into account at the time of considering
request of quashment of FIR or the proceedings.

I have pursued the missing persons reported dated
16.09.2016 and Dehati merg dated 18.09.2016 so also the
statement of Moh. Khan.

Looking to the nature, purpose and contents of these
documents, though, I do not want to express any opinion
as it may affect the proceedings before the learned Trial
Court but it would be suffice to say that at this primary
stage only on the basis of doubts expressed by the learned
Senior counsel, the proceedings cannot be dropped at this
stage, therefore, in view of the guiding principles,
allegations made by the witnesses, evidence collected
during the investigation, I do not find sufficient grounds to
abort the proceedings pending before the learned Trial
Court. In my considered opinion, the contentions made by
the learned Senior counsel falls short to quash the
proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. The
present petition is devoid of merits, deserves to be and is

hereby dismissed.

(Virender Singh)


Digitally signed by
Date: 2018.08.09
13:37:06 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


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