LAWS(MPH)-2012-10-121

NAGESHWAR DHAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On October 03, 2012
NAGESHWAR DHAR DWIVEDI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants have filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing Criminal Case No. 1158/2011 arising out of Crime No. 103/2011, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahdol.

(2.) THE facts, in short, giving rise to this petition are that marriage of applicant No. 3 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 26.1.2008. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are father-in- law and mother-in-law and applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are sister-in- law and brother-in-law (nand and nandoi) of respondent No. 2 Abhilasha.

(3.) DO not live with the other applicants, they are Nand and Nandoi of respondent No. 2 and they live at Raipur. The allegation levelled against the applicants are false, frivolous and baseless. There is no prima facie case against the applicants. They have been falsely implicated in this case as a counter blast of the matrimonial case pending before First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni. Counsel has further submitted that if the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1158/2011 arising out of Crime No. 103/2011 is continued, it would amount to harassment of the applicants and abuse of process of the Court, therefore, same be quashed. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Dashrath P. Bundela and others Vs. State of M.P. and another - ILR 2011 MP 2923. 5. Learned counsel for the State and complainant have submitted that the criminal case was not registered on the basis of private complaint. If there are any discrepancies in the private complaint and the First Information Report, same may be considered at the time of trial. Merely, on the basis of pendency of the matrimonial case, all the facts and circumstances mentioned by respondent No. 2 in the FIR and her statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be brushed aside, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.