KALLU KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing the Criminal Case No.2183/2012 pending in the Court of CJM, Guna, under Section 498-A, 506, 323 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, respondent No. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner No.3 Imran Khan, has lodged the report against the petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband respectively, alleging that her marriage was solemnized in accordance with Muslim rituals on 17.12.2003 with Imran Khan and after marriage Imran Khan and Kallu Khan started demanding cash of Rs.1 Lac. When the complainant stated that her father is not in a position to fulfill the demand, then respondent No.2 was harassed and beaten by the petitioners and when respondent No.2 told this fact to her parents, then her father tried to settle the dispute but petitioners continued their demand. It is further alleged that on 22.07.2012 petitioners have beaten the complainant and left her in her parental house. On 18.09.2012 at about 12:00 P.M petitioners came at parents house of the complainant and started beating the complainant and insisted to fulfill the demand of dowry. On the report, FIR at Crime No.417/2012 under Sections 498-A, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the petitioners and after due investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of CJM, Guna.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 is residing separately with his parents since 2005 and in this regard agreement has also been executed. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant and before lodging the F.I.R. complainant had filed an application under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and reply was filed by petitioner No.3 on 18.09.2012 and on the same day complainant has also filed an application for interim maintenance. Criminal proceedings have been initiated by the respondent with a view to harass the petitioners. Prima facie, there is no material against the petitioners for holding that they have committed the alleged offence.