SAVITA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of CrPC seeking relief of quashment of F.I.R. No. 91/2021 and criminal proceedings pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Durg in criminal case No. 1098/2022 for alleged offence under Sec. 498-A/34 of IPC and Sec. 04 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime. The marriage of complainant with accused Rajkumar Shukla was solemnized on 22/11/2019. As the complainant could not adjust herself, within shortest period of time, left her matrimonial home, lodged the false complaint against petitioners in the police station. In the complaint, even petitioners no. 2 to 4 who are distant relatives have also been implicated. In the charge sheet submitted by the police no specific allegation has been levelled against petitioners to attract the alleged offence against them. False implication is with ill-motive and is malicious. Father of complainant is Head Constable working in the police department and therefore had implicated all the family members including the distant relatives making false allegations. Permitting the prosecution against petitioners against which there are no direct allegation will be an abuse of process of law. He contended that the complainant and her family members have misused the provisions of IPC as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act and therefore the relief prayed for by the petitioners in this petition be granted and quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against them. He places his reliance upon in the case of Ammasi Kounder (dead) through Lrs vs. Govindammal reported in (2005) 11 SCC 538, Kailash Chandra Agrawal vs. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551, Varala Bharath Kumar vs. State of Telangana, (2017) 9 SCC 413 and in the case of Kartik Chandra Majee @ Kartik Chand Majee and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2018) 13 SCC 747.

(3.) Learned State counsel would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and would submit that the submission of learned counsel for petitioners is not correct, there are prima facie allegation of harassment and cruelty against all the petitioners. He contended that as there are material against the petitioners they are not entitled for the relief as prayed in the writ petition.