SURESH PATHAK Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners preferred this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at Crime no.36/17, registered at Police Station Slimnabad, Katni for offences under Sections 294, 323, 498-A, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and subsequent criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No.484/17 is pending before the learned JMFC, Katni.

(2.) The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the complainant, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant, petitioners No.4 and 5 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. Complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that her marriage was solemnized with Suresh Pathak on 26/04/2016. The petitioners harassed and treated her with cruelty. She was being taunted for not bringing enough dowry. They demanded a vehicle/Bolero Jeep. Her husband used to come drunk and beat her. The family members used to instigate him, for not bringing enough dowry and because of this, her mother-in-law took away her mangalsutra. When she used to come to her maternal home, she used to narrate about the harassments. Her parents told the accused persons that, whatever, they had, they have given, now they are not capable of giving a Balero vehicle. Despite the, harassment and ill-treatment she tolerated everything. On 10/10/2016, when she had gone to Bhopal along with her mother, her husband said that, sufficient dowry was not given. She was thrown put of the house after beating her and threatening of her life. The complainant was ill-treated. She also claimed that, the husband has relation with other woman at Bhopal. The complainant apprehend threat to her life. On 15/01/2017, all the petitioners came to village Teori and said that, Bolero vehicle has not been arranged, therefore, the complainant should take divorce. When the complainant said that, she is not taking divorce, they abused and assaulted the complainant. They also threatened her of her life. They wanted her to sign the divorce paper. Along with her family members, Lalit Bajpai, Subhash Pyasi, Mathura Prasad, Arvind Mishra and others saw the incident. On this report, crime has been registered at Police Station Slimnabad. Charge-sheet has been filed, subsequently, criminal case No.484/17 has been registered before the learned JMFC, Katni.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that, the petitioners filed the complaint before the Superintendent of Police and other police officers on 26/11/2016. Second complaint was also filed before the Police Conciliation Centre, Slimnabad on 28/01/2017. The legal notice dated 30/11/2016 was sent to the complainant for Restitution of Conjugal Right. When the respondent No.2 did not reply; Civil Suit No.85-A/17 was filed by Suresh Pathak under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Right on 25/01/2017. It is claimed that, the respondent after the notice of proceeding under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has lodged this report on 28/01/2017, which is after thought and not maintainable.