SHIV PRASAD TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners-Accused have filed this miscellaneous criminal case under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhopal vide RCT No. 7481/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the dowry Prohibition Act registered in Crime No. 21/2019.

(2.) Prosecution case in short is that on 06.01.2019, the respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR against the petitioners and one Nitin Sethi stating that on 18.04.2018, marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with petitioner/accused No.3 according to Hindu rites and ritual. Petitioner/accused No.1, 2, 4 and 5 are father-in-law, motherin- law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2 respectively. Petitioner No. 3 is working in JIO company at Mumbai. Petitioner No. 3 and his family members have tortured the respondent No. 2 on account of demand of dowry. Petitioner No. 3 told her parents to give Rs. 5 lakhs to him, otherwise he would give divorce to her. Petitioner No. 2 has also demanded the dowry from her. She further contended that even after providing some articles by her mother, the petitioners was continually demanding money and gold ornaments from respondent No. 2 and due to non fulfillment of said demand, they tortured her physically and mentally. Petitioner No. 3 and one Nitin Setthi threatened her to kill her parents. On 20.10.2018, petitioner No. 3 committed marpeet with respondent No.2 on Panvel Mumbai due to which she lodged the complaint against the petitioner No. 3 bearing Crime No. 1640/2018 for the offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Thereafter, she left her matrimonial house and since than she is living with her parents at Bhopal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.3 and respondent No. 2 were living happily at Mumbai whereas the petitioner No.1 was posted and had visited several places. The petitioners No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are living separately from the petitioner No. 3 and respondent No.2 and they had no interference with personal life of respondent No. 2. The entire family have been roped into this frivolous case just to get monetary relief and compensation. She made general allegations against all the petitioners saying that the petitioners were ill-treating her and demanded dowry, so in the absence of specific allegation against the petitioners, they cannot be prosecuted further. He submits that initially the complainant has lodged the FIR against only petitioner No. 3 for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and at later stage with the mala fide intention she roped all the family members of petitioner No. 3. He has also raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction saying that petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 2 have not resided at Bhopal, thus, the cognizance taken by the Court below is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing of this petition.