SUNIT AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed for quashment of criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.2273/2012 initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the FIR lodged at Mahila Police Station, Padava, Gwalior. That the marriage of complainant respondent no.2 Smt. Shweta Agarwal with petitioner Saurabh Agarwal took place on 18/02/2011. She was living with her husband for certain period and thereafter she left her matrimonial home due to dispute occurred between her and her husband. Then, she lodged a report at police station Kotwali, Bhind on 11-05-2011. Then, Family Court directed the complainant- wife and her husband to live together for a period of thirty days. Thereafter, complainant- wife went to live with her husband on 01/11/2011. It is alleged that the family members of the husband of the complainant demanded dowry of Rs. 5 lacs and a car. When demand was not meted out, the complainant-wife had been beaten on 13/11/2011 and she lodged an FIR at Mahila Police Station Padav, Gwalior. In the aforesaid FIR, she stated that the family members of her in-laws, namely, her husband Saurabh Agarwal, father- in-law Govind Agarwal, mother-in-law Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Jeth Gaurav Agarwal and Jethani Neha Agarwal and other persons had demanded cash of Rs.5 lacs and four-wheeler from her. When demand was not meted out they had beaten her on 13-11-2011 and also cut veins of her hands by a blade and her husband forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and damaged her private parts. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the police registered an offence under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against present petitioners, namely, husband of complaint Saurabh Agarwal, mother-in-law Smt. Sunita Agarwal, father-in-law Govind Agarwal, Jetha Gaurav @ Saili Agarwal and Jethani Neha Agarwal. The police recorded the statements of complainant Smt. Shweta Agarwal, mother of complainant Smt. Vinita Agarwal and father of complainant Vinod Agarwal, Vijay Kumar and Girraj Agarwal. All these persons deposed that dowry was demanded by the petitioners and they had beaten the complainant. They had also cut veins of hands of the complainant and husband of complainant also damaged her private parts. Earlier, father of the complainant, Vinod Agarwal submitted an application on 13/11/2011 at University Police station Gwalior. But in the aforesaid application he did not mention the fact that complainant was beaten by the accused persons. The Station House Officer submitted a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 26-11-2011 and mentioned the fact that the doctor examined the complainant and found only some simple injuries. An enquiry was also conducted and the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted his report to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior on 27-11-2011. In the aforesaid report, he mentioned the fact that the petitioners did not commit any offence and a case for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before the Family Court. Apart from this, modus operandi of the complainant is to get rid of her marriage.

(2.) IN the present case, the complaint was medically examined and in the medical report attached in the Case Diary, there was simple multiple abrasion over both arms 0.5 cm to 2 cm long. The doctor opined that the injury was simple in nature and it was caused by hard and blunt object. Contrary to this, the complaint and her father, mother and other witnesses stated to the police that the husband of the complainant and other family members cut veins of hands of the complainant and husband of the complainant committed forcibly sexual intercourse with the complainant and also damaged her private parts. But, there was no such injury found by the doctor. Apart from this, two enquiries were conducted by the police as mentioned earlier in this order. The police officers opined that no offence has been committed by the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions i.e. Ram Lal and Anr. Vs. State of J and K (1999) 2 SCC 213; Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 667; State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors (1997) 2 SCC 699; Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 692; B.S.Joshi and Ors. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI 2008 (9) SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 has held that in regard to exercise of powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. prosecution could be quashed only if after perusal of the evidence it could be held that no offence is made out or continuation of prosecution is in the abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in (2010) SCC 667 observed as under in regard to dealing an offence under Section 498-A of IPC:-