DEVENDRA KUMAR SADH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.117/2020 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior as well as charge-sheet filed for offence under Ss. 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC read with Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the main ground for quashment of criminal proceedings is plea of alibi. The applicant No. 3 was undergoing training at Hyderabad from 1/3/2020 till 31/3/2020 and, therefore, it is clear that the allegations of beating against the applicant No. 3 are false. It is further submitted that similarly applicant No. 1 is a bank employee and he was on his duty on 11/3/2020. It is further submitted that due to lock-down, no proceedings were going on and thus, it is incorrect to say that the applicant No. 1 did not appear for reconciliation proceedings in spite of service of notice. It is further submitted that in fact, no notice was received by the applicant No. 1 with regard to reconciliation proceedings. Nothing has been argued on behalf of applicant No. 2.

(3.) Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that if the FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence, then legitimate prosecution should not be stifled in the mid way. Respondent No. 2 has specifically alleged in her FIR as well as her statement under Sec. 161 of CrPC that she got married to the applicant No. 1 on 29/5/2019 and an amount of Rs.15,00,000.00 was spent by her father. From the second day of marriage, the applicants started scolding that her parents have not given the dowry as per the status of the applicants. Had marriage of the applicant No. 1 performed at some other place, then he would have got the dowry worth Rs.30,00,000.00. It was further alleged that father of the respondent No. 2/complainant is working on the post of Assistant Teacher and he had given the household goods of good company. The applicants were demanding four wheeler vehicle and an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00. When the complainant informed that her father is not financially sound to fulfill their demand and the marriage of her younger sister is yet to be performed, then on this issue, the applicants started physically and mentally harassing the respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that she was beaten by them. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 informed her parents on telephone. The parents of the respondent No. 2 came to matrimonial house of respondent No. 2 and tried to convince the applicants that as per his financial condition, he is not in a position to fulfill their demand of a car and an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00. It was alleged that after hearing reply from her father, the applicants started abusing the respondent No. 2 and her parents and turned her out from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, again father of the respondent No. 2 contacted the applicant No. 1 and, accordingly, the applicants came to the parental home of respondent No. 2, but once again, they raised the demand of one car and an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00. It was further alleged that on 11/3/2020 her husband was called for reconciliation but he did not appear even for once. It is submitted that there is nothing in the FIR to show that the respondent No. 2 was ever assaulted by the applicant No. 1 or 3 in the month of March, 2020. Thus, even if the applicant No. 3 was at Hyderabad in connection with his training, then it cannot be said that the allegations made in the FIR are false. It is further submitted that so far a plea of alibi raised by respondent No.1 on 11/3/2021 is concerned, it is a case of the respondent No. 2 herself that the applicant No. 1 did not attend reconciliation proceedings. It is further submitted that it is incorrect to say that any lock-down was imposed on 11/3/2021, whereas lockdown was imposed w.e.f. 24/3/2021.