SUBHASH SUNERE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. The applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case-RT No.62/2009 pending before the CJM, Bhopal (State Vs. Subhash Sunere & others).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2 Neelu Sunere is wedded wife of the applicant No.1 Subhash Sunere and remaining applicants are relatives of applicant No.1. THE complainant/respondent No.2 had sent an FIR to the Police Station Vidisha on 13.9.2008 against the applicants for investigation and filing of challan, because an offence under Section 498-A of IPC was done with her. THEreafter she sent a similar complaint to the Superintendent of Police concerned on 15.9.2008. Additional Superintendent of Police Vidisha directed to SHO concerned to register a case and to investigate the matter. After due investigation, challan was filed. THEreafter the Indore Bench of this Court has transferred the criminal case to the Court of CJM, Bhopal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has submitted a document Annexure P-8, which was a report sent to the Superintendent of Police, Indore in which it is stated that the complainant herself signed the stamp paper and talaqnama was prepared on that paper, and therefore by creating such a document, the complainant gave talaq to the applicant No.1 and thereafter she went to her parents' house. Looking to such document, where it is not possible for a wife to leave the house of her husband without any cruel temper of her husband and secondly there was no need to write down such talaqnama in favour of applicant No.1, narration of this document clearly indicates that allegations made in the FIR dated 15.9.2008 are correct that the applicant No.1 got signature and thumb impression of the complainant after giving her some intoxicants in the cold drink. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the bride cannot be harassed in last four months. LEARNED counsel for the respondents further submits that if FIR is perused, then the incident dated 7.4.2008 also mentioned in the FIR, which is of Vidisha and if crime is committed in continuation to the previous crime, then Police Station Vidisha or Police Station Indore could take cognizance, and therefore if police Station Vidisha has taken cognizance in the case, then it cannot be said that FIR is baseless and Police Station Vidisha has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. At present challan has already been filed, and therefore the applicants have every right to raise all objections before the trial Court. In such circumstances, where an alternate remedy is available, then application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed.