AMIT KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners- accused have filed this M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceeding of criminal case no. 351/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in connection with crime No. 28/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that marriage of respondent no. 2 was solemnized with petitioner-accused No. 1 on 29.05.2013. Petitioner-accused no. 2 is father-in-law of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 submitted written report on 07.03.2019 before Police Station Mahila Thana Satna. It is mentioned in this report that petitioner-accused No. 1 is posted as Cashier Gramin Bank Satna. They are residing at Satna since 24.04.2014. They blessed one girl, her father-in-law petitioner no. 2 was also came there. Petitioners-accused demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry. They abused filthy language. They tortured and humiliated her. They told her that petitioner- accused no. 1 will solemnize another marriage because respondent no.2 is not beautiful and mentally retarded then she telephoned. Her parent was agreed to give Rs. 4,00,000/- but petitioners-accused were not ready for that. She was sent her parental house on 20.12.2018. On 14.01.2019 she reached in the office of the petitioner-accused no. 1 where petitioner- accused no.1 abused filthy language, he pushed her so she returned to her parental house, thereafter on 06.03 2019 she again reached in the house of petitioners-accused at Satna. Petitioners-accused met her, they again demanded dowry, abused filthy language, threatened her, so she is living in her parental house. FIR was registered, statements of witnesses have been recorded.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused submits that respondent no. 2 is very adamant in nature. She never takes care of any household responsibilities and since marriage respondent no. 2 wanted to live separate from her in-laws and settle in separate house in Jabalpur city. But the present petitioner-accused no. 1 being a government employee he was posted in Gramin Bank in Village- Bamorekala, District Shivpuri. He wanted to live with the respondent no. 2 at Village Bamorekala but respondent no. 2 and her family members clearly refused the same and they had put into the minds of the respondent no. 2 that she will reside with the present petitioner-accused No. 1 only if he agrees to live in a separate house in the Jabalpur City and not in any villages. In the month of December 2013 petitioner No. 1 got transferred from Village Bamorekala District Shivpur to Satna. Respondent no. 2 again refused to go to Satna with petitioner no. 1 and she went to for her parental house at Bamhnoda Panager, District Jabalpur. Petitioner no. 1 rented a house in Satna and tried to bring back respondent no. 2 to live together at Satna, but respondent no. 2 and her parents did not agree for the same, but anyhow the petitioner no. 1 succeeded to take back his wife and started living with her at Satna. On 17.09.2014 daughter namely Aradhya Pandey was born from the wedlock of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and since birth of their daughter the respondent no. 2 started living with her parents, therefore, petitioner no. 1 and his relatives have visited multiple times to in-laws house to bring back to the respondent no. 2 but respondent no. 2 and his parents and other family members insulted the petitioner no. 1 and his relatives. Finally respondent no. 2 agreed to return back Satna on the condition that parents of the petitioner no. 1 will never visited the place where petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are residing. The parents of petitioner-accused no. 1 living in Jabalpur and they are not allowed to visit the resident where the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are living. Respondent no. 2 regularly threatens to the petitioner no. 1 that she would commit suicide if the parents of petitioner no. 1 visit the house of the respondent no. 2 and parents of the petitioner no. 1 are not even allowed to enter in the house by the respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 and her parents used to regularly demand money from the petitioner no. 1, therefore, petitioner no. 1 regularly giving money in various amounts from time to time to his mother-in-law and respondent no. 2 used to go to her parental house without informing to the present petitioner no.