RAVI MOHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 20.5.2011 registered by Police Station Chanderi District Ashok Nagar at Crime No. 242/11 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The brief facts rise to this petition are that complainant-Smt. Seema Sharma lodged a report alleging that her marriage took place with Ravi Mohan on 25.2.2007. After six months of her marriage the family members of her husband namely Mahavir Prasad - father-in-law, Smt. Sushma Mother-in-law, Brij Mohan @ Rinku - Dewar and Mukti Sharma - Sister-in-law started abusing her and used to beat her and demand cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- and motorcycle. The complainant tolerated harassment for some time but when it becomes intolerable she informed her parents that her life is in danger, then her father came and took her with him to her paternal home. Her parents made several attempts to settle the dispute by calling the family members and relatives but in-laws of the complainant were not prepared to settle the dispute and (sic)isted for fulfillment of their demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and motorcycle. The father of the complainant is handicapped and retired person and he is not in a position to fulfill the demand. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Crime No. 242/11 under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioners and after due investigation the Charge-sheet has also been filed. Being aggrieved the petitioners have preferred this petition.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they never made any demand of dowry from the complainant. The statement of the father of the complainant Rama Shankar Dixit and complainant-Seema Sharma recorded on 16.9.2010 by G.R.P. Police, apparently indicates that no demand of dowry was made. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before filing this petition. The petitioner No. 1 has also made serious efforts to bring back the complainant, but no one gave any heed to the requests of the petitioner. During investigation no document has been considered by the Police Authorities. The investigation apparently indicates that there is an abuse of the process of Court. It is prayed that F.I.R. and related Charge-sheet be quashed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that petitioners have made demand of dowry and due to non fulfillment of the demand harassed the complainant. Therefore, the complaint has been filed by the complaint.