SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sakti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2017

MCRC-1431-2017
(SAKTI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

18-04-2017
Shri B. Parida, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR
registered at Crime No.317/2016 dated 31.8.2016
and also for discharging them from the charges
framed by ACJM, Indore for offence under Sections
498-A, 294, 232, 506 and 34 of IPC.

2. It is a case registered under Sections 498-A, 294,
232, 506 and 34 of IPC on the complaint of the wife
against husband and his brothers and sister-in-law.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that the complainant never reside with
the family of petitioner No.1 and her husband-Sakti is
working in the Airport as Junior Supervisor and
resided at the place of posting. The complaint has
been filed only for pressurizing and threatening the
in-laws of the complainant. The allegations against all
the petitioners are false and frivolous. No incident as
alleged by her had happened.

4. It is further submitted that the applications filed
by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and
under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from
Domestic Violation Act, 2005 and divorce petition
under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act were
withdrawn as compromise to live separately from the
family of the petitioner No.1. Application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was disallowed by the Family
Court holding that the complainant wife has deserted
the husband voluntarily and without any sufficient
cause.

5. Therefore, the FIR registered against the
petitioners and proceedings on the basis of the FIR
pending before the Trial Court may be quashed.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer appeared on behalf of the
respondent/State has opposed the submissions put
forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. I have gone through the record.

8. In her written FIR, the complainant makes certain
allegations. I would like to refer it in her own words:-

“’kknh ds ckn eqs ifr ‘kfDr tsB f’ko tsBkuh
‘kkfyuh nsoj vt; us vkB fnu rd Bhd ls j[kk mlds
ckn eqs ngst ds fy;s ijs’kku djus yxs dgus yxs rsjs
ekrk firk us ngst esa dqN ugha fn;k nks yk[k s
uxnh o okgu Lohi fMtk;j ykdj ns rHkh rsjs dks
o”kZ 2011 ekg uoEcj esa eqs vius eka cki ds ;gka
esjs ifr NksM+ dj vk;s rc ls eqs esjs ifr o mlds
ifjokj ds yksx ysdj ugha vk;s] eSaus esUVsUl
Mksesfld ck;ys’k dk dsl U;k;ky; esa x;k fnukad
5@08@2016 dks U;k;ky; esa lekSrk gqvk esjs ifr
‘kfDr KkupUnz [kk.Msdj] gjh [kk.Msdj ysus
kcqvk vk;s eqs ysdj e.Mys’oj firk ds ;gka x;s] 25
vxLr 2016 rd ;gka jgha fnukad 29 vxLr 2016 dks
ifr ds lkFk kcqvk dksVZ xbZA ogka ls bankSj ds
fy;s 30@08@2016 dks esjs firk iqjsUnz dqekj
xks;y] ekrk fueZyk xks;y] HkkbZ uouhr xks;y]
HkkHkh oS’kkyh xks;y ?kj igqapus ds fy;s nks cts
dqufiz;k uxj vk;s] ogka ekSds ekStwn f’ko
[kk.Msdj] vt; [kk.Msdj] fot; [kk.Msdj] ‘kkfyuh
[kk.Msdj ,oa muds lkFk 1015 vU; vKkr yksx Hkh
Fks ftUgksaus eqs o esjs ifjokj okyks dks eknj
pksn cgu pksn dh uaxh uaxh xkfy;ka nh dgus yxs
rsjs dks gekjs ?kj esa ugha j[ksaxs] j.Mh] fNuky
dksVZ esa lekSrk dj vk xbZ] ;gka ls pyh tk ugha
rks rsjs dks o rsjs ifjokj okyks dks tku ls [kRe dj
nsxsa] esjs firk iqjsUnz dqekj xks;y dks f’ko
[kk.Msdj us cka;s dku ij kiV ekjk gS] ftlls dku
esa lqukbZ ugha ns jgk gSA ‘kkfyuh o f’ko us esjs
xyk nck;k gSA ‘kfDr us /kDdk fn;k esjs dks uhps
fxjk fn;k cPps dks fNuus ds dksf’k’k dh esjs
HkkbZ uouhr xks;y dks Hkh bUgha yksxksa us
ykr ?kqlksa ls ekjihV fd;k gSA eqqs esjs ifr
‘kfDr] tsB f’ko [kk.Msdj] tsBkuh ‘kkfyuh] nsoj vt;]
fot; us ngst dh ekxuh dj ‘kkjhfjd :i ls izrkfM+r
fd;k gS]”

9. In her statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
before the Police, the complainant, her sister-in-law
(Bhabhi) Vaishali, brother-Navneet Goyal, mother-
Nirmala Goyal and father- Purindra Goyal have
supported the allegations. In medical examination,
injuries were found on the body of the complainant
and her father.

10. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that all the allegations are false and
frivolous and made only to take undue advantage to
pressurize the in-laws of the complainant, but it is a
fact that certain allegations are there and at this
stage on the face of the documents, it cannot be said
that they are false or opportunity to prove them
should not be granted.

11. While considering the petition under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., the Courts have to be strictly confined to
the scope and ambit of the provision.

12. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extra
ordinary 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. At this stage sifting
or weighing of the evidence is neither permitted nor
expected.

13. In Krishnanan Vs. Krishnaveni (1997 AIR
SCW 950 : AIR 1997 SC 987) it is held that when
the High Court on examination of the record finds that
there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of
process of the Courts or the required statutory
procedure has not been complied with or there is
failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed
by the Magistrate requires correction, it is the duty of
the High Court to have it corrected at the inception
lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is,
therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved
with inherent power and would be justified, under
such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power. It
may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless
multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial
and protraction of proceedings.

14. In Bhajan Lal’s case (State of Haryana Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC

604) Hon’ble the Supreme Court has prepared a
guideline in this regard. 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
channelized and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulate 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 accused.

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 Code.

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.

15. Though, it is a fact that compromise has taken
place between the parties, but content of para 5 of
the petition itself show that the present incident has
happened after the compromise.

16. Evidence produced by prosecution against the
petitioners, if taken at it’s face value is sufficient to
disclose the prima facie case against the petitioners.

17. Keeping in view the settled proposition of law
and the evidence available on record against the
petitioners, I do not find any ground to quash the
proceedings at the present stage. Present petition is
bereft of merit, liable to be dismissed and is
dismissed accordingly.

(Virender
Singh)
Judge
moni

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