MAHESH SAHU Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR.in Crime No.429/2017 registered at Police Station Basoda City, District Vidisha for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as for quashment of charge sheet and the criminal proceedings.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant No.1 is the husband of the complainant whereas the applicants No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. The applicant No.4 is the uncle-in-law of the complainant, whereas the applicants No.5 and 6 are the elder brothers-in-law (Jeth) of the complainant and applicants No.7 and 8 are the wives of applicants No.5 and 6 (Jethani). The applicants No.9 and 10 are the sisters-in-law of the complainant.

(3.) On 23.5.2017, the respondent No.2/complainant had lodged a report against the applicants on the allegation that she was married to the applicant No.1 on 22.4.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the applicants started harassing the complainant. They demand Rs.5,00,000/- and when she refused to fulfill their demand, then about 8 to 9 months back when the complainant was pregnant, then her husband and the other applicants assaulted the complainant and she was turned out of her matrimonial house and she gave birth to her child in her parental home and after the compromise in a Social Panchayat, the applicant No.1 took her to Bhopal along with him, where also, she was beaten by the applicants No.1. By keeping her in dark, the applicant No.1 left the complainant at Indore and when she made a complaint of it, the applicant No.1 again compromised the matter and assured that he would neither demand the dowry nor would harass the complainant. However, even after the compromise, the applicant No.1 refused to keep her with him because of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.5,00,000/-. On 11.5.2017, when the complainant went to the house of the applicant No.1, then she was not allowed to enter inside the house and he instructed that the complainant should go to village Pachma and on 22.5.2017, the complainant went to village Pachma where the remaining applicants did not allow the complainant to enter inside the house and they alleged that unless and until she brings an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- they would not allow her to stay in her matrimonial house. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicant No.1 has filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce and only by way of counterblast the false report has been lodged. Even otherwise the allegations made against the applicants are vague, general and omnibus in nature and it is well established principle of law that the near and dear relatives of the husband of the complainant should not be prosecuted on the basis of general and omnibus allegations and they should be compelled to face the prosecution only when there are serious, direct and specific allegations against them and the allegations made against the applicants do not fulfill that qualification. It is further submitted that the respondents are residing separately and they have been falsely implicated as they are near and dear relatives of the applicant No.1.