LAWS(MPH)-2024-2-124

AAKASH CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On February 05, 2024
Aakash Chouhan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the petitioner seeking quashment of First Information Report No. 680 dtd. 20/9/2019 registered at Police Station Chhola mandir, district Bhopal and Charge-sheet dtd. 4/11/2019 for offences under Sec. 498-A, 323, 294 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 after long relationship, entered into wedlock on 12/3/2019. Petitioner No. 2 is sister of petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 3 is husband of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 5 is also another sister of the present petitioner and petitioner No. 4 is husband of petitioner No. 5. Petitioner No. 6 is mother of petitioner No. 1.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel that after the marriage respondent No. 2 was not inclined to reside with the petitioner as according to respondent No. 2 she was uncomfortable in residing with the family members of the husband and, therefore, this aspect was admitted by the respondent No. 2 in the proceedings which were conducted by the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. The counsel while taking this Court to proceedings of Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, contained in Annexure A-2, submits that the real cause which ultimately ensued in lodging F.I.R against the petitioners is to be unearthed while taking into consideration the conduct of the respondent No. 2. It is also contended by the counsel that an application under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by petitioner No. 1 against the respondent No. 2. The said application was allowed and a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed. Later on as despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, when the respondent No. 2 failed to cohabit with the petitioner No. 1, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Sec. 13, Hindu Marriage Act and the said application has also been allowed and there is a decree of dissolution of marriage. It is thus contended by the counsel that taking into consideration the aforesaid, it is evident that the present petitioners have been falsely implicated. Counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on decision of Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599], Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati v. State of U.P. and another [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 153] and order dtd. 13/6/2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in Anita Rai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C No. 48916 of 2021) has sought quashing of First Information Report No. 680 dtd. 20/9/2019 registered at Police Station Chhola mandir, district Bhopal and Charge-sheet dtd. 4/11/2019.