MANIRAM SHAKYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1162/2009 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.

(2.) Brief facts that would emerge from the FIR dated 18/1/2009 are that the complainant/respondent No. 4-Smt. Priyanka and Rajeev Shakya (petitioner No. 3 herein), who happened to be son of the petitioners No. 1 and 2, namely, Maniram Shakya and Smt. Munnidevi fell in love and so both left their respective houses and performed marriage as per their own volition and against the wishes of their parents in Arya Samaj Mandir at Jaipur on 30/11/2005. Out of the said wedlock, one female child was born. It is mentioned in the FIR by the complainant that since her parents were not agreed to their marriage, her father lodged the report against the petitioners in police station Janakganj. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith her husband came back to Gwalior and after recording the statements of the complainant and her father in the court, her father expressed not to prosecute the case against the petitioners and eventually the case was closed with the consent of the parties. Immediately after end of the matter, the complainant stated that the petitioners started raising demand of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and one motorcycle and for non-fulfillment of their demands, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. Ultimately on 17/1/2009 the complainant alongwith her child were turned out from the matrimonial home on the pretext that she had not fulfilled the demand. Hence, she lodged the report against the petitioners on the basis of which a Crime No. 7/2009 was registered against the petitioners for committing the offence under section 498A/34 of I.P.C. out of which criminal case No. 1162/2009 is pending before the court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition inter alia submitting that the FIR was lodged with malafide intentions with a view to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true, even then on their face value they do not disclose prima facie commission of the offence against the petitioners. Hence, on these premises it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the relief claimed for may be granted in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) Controverting the arguments aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/complainant, submitted that the FIR and the initial depositions of the witnesses prima facie disclose commission of the offence alleged and therefore the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed. Apart that after recording the evidence of both the sides, matter has been closed by the trial court for final hearing as per order dated 20/6/2011. It is also contended by the counsel that because of stay order dated 2/6/2011 passed by this Court, the judgment could not be pronounced by the trial court.