RAGHVENDRA DIXIT Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No. 814/14 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner. As per prosecution case, a written report was lodged by the complainant Charu Sharma alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Ashish Goswami on 6th February, 2013 at Radhika Palace, Morena. In the marriage, on the demand of accused persons, her father had given Rs. 11 lacs and other articles in dowry. After marriage, the applicant, who is maternal uncle (Mama) of Ashish, and other co-accused used to harass her and demand Rs. two lacs more. The husband of the complainant Ashish also slapped the complainant for that. When the complainant told this fact to her father, her father came to Ashok Nagar and gave Rs. one lac to Ashish and his mother. On 10th February, 2013 the complainant, her husband and Devar came to Mumbai. The complainant also alleged that when she went with Ashish to Kerala, he attempted to push her in the sea. It is further alleged that she came to know that Ashish is having relations with one lady. Her husband Ashish and Devar used to make pressure on her to go to Morena and harass her. At Mumbai Ashish, his mother and sister took her to an advocate and forcibly got her signatures on some papers. After some time, all of them returned to Ashoknagar. Thereafter, Ashish called the father of the complainant and forcibly sent her to Morena. The complainant earlier made a complaint in the month of October, 2013 in the S.P. Office and thereafter a conciliation proceeding was started, but it was also failed as the accused persons demanded a car in dowry. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No. 814/14 was registered against the applicant and others for the offences as aforesaid.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the alleged offence. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner for demand of dowry. In addition, he further submitted that petitioner is the maternal-uncle (Mama) of the complainant's husband and he does not come within the definition of relative as defined under Section 498A of IPC, therefore, he cannot be tried for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and prayed for allowing the petition by quashing the FIR against the petitioner.

(3.) Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No. 1/State and learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the petition.