VIJAY SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition tinder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicants seeking quashment of a criminal case registered against them vide Crime No. 8242/2009 for offences under Section 498A and Section 34 of IPC and pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Jabalpur. Applicant No. 1 is the father of applicant No. 2 and applicant No. 3 is the mother of applicant No. 2. Applicant No. 2 and non -applicant No. 2 are Advocates registered with the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and are practising lawyers in Jabalpur.

(2.) THEY were married to each other in accordance to the Hindu religious rights and customs on 28.4.2011 and it is the case of the applicants herein that the marital life of the parties were not smooth and making allegations against the non -applicant No. 2 to the effect that she wanted to live separately and was insisting that applicant No. 2 stay away from his parents, was creating all sorts of problem in married life and finally it is said that she left the house of the applicants on 20th August, 2007 and started living separately. Repeated efforts made by the applicants having failed it is stated that the applicant No. 2 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights vide Annexure A/1 on 4.10.2008. It is said that on receipt of the summons with regard to the aforesaid case, non -applicant No. 2 filed a police complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act vide Annexure A/2 and a FIR with the Police Station vide Annexure A/3 on 16.6.2009 for offences under Sections 498A and 34 of IPC and police after investigation into the FIR having filed the challan vide Annexure A/4 in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 24.6.2009, this application has been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings registered under Sections 498A/34, IPC and pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

(3.) ON the contrary, non -applicant No. 2 appearing in person argued that the applicant No. 2 was an Advocate and taking advantage of his dominant position as a law knowing person, misused the law against the non -applicant No. 2. She complains that ever since she was married, applicants were harassing her and it was because of the situation created by the applicants that it was impossible for her to stay with them. It is indicated by her that when she was carrying and was on the family way, her mother -in -law applicant No. 3 kicked her on the stomach on 20th August, 2007 and because of the various activities she has to leave the marital house. It was said that they were harassing her and therefore, she had to initiate the proceedings. As far as filing of the complaint after receipt of proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, non -applicant No. 2 has filed a detailed affidavit and during the course of hearing she informs this Court that whenever she was harassed or ill -treated, she complained to her parents and brother and applicant No. 2 who is an Advocate, used to come and console her and assure that he will do the needful and always ensure that no written complaint be made. She points out that even settlement process were held by the police authorities in the police women and family help centre and it is said that it was only when she received the summons under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she came to know that applicant No. 2 is deceiving her and, therefore, she narrating all the facts filed the proceedings, denying the allegations of mala fide by saying that the applicant No. 2 a lawyer has misguided her and was harassing her demanding dowry and was preventing the non -applicant No. 2 from initiating the complaint at an appropriate point of time, she explains her conduct in filing the complaint after notice under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was issued.