VIVEK KUMAR BASTWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous criminal case has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of first information report in Crime No. 543/2018 registered at P.S. Ranjhi, District Jabalpur lodged by respondent No. 2 for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous criminal case is that the applicant got married with the respondent No. 2 and two daughters were born out of that wed-lock. The applicant kept the respondent No. 2 for 6 years harmoniously but kept continuing the demand of dowry. After the birth of second daughter, applicant along with his relatives started taunting the respondent No. 2 that they need a son and started demand of a car, two lacs rupees and pressurized her to bring two lacs rupees and car from her parents. On 09.07.2018, the applicant along with his relatives uttered filthy words at the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 went to police station and from there, went to her parental house and then submitted a written report to SHO Police Station Ranjhi on 16.08.2018. On the basis of that, Crime No. 543/2018 was registered against the applicant and her in-laws for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the registration of FIR, applicant filed this petition for quashing the FIR on the ground that respondent No. 2 lodged the report with mala fide intention. The marriage of the applicant and the respondent No. 2 was love marriage. Her father was not agreed to marry respondent No. 2 with the applicant. When her father harassed the respondent No. 2, she lodged the report in the police station against her father. The applicant never demanded any money and never pressurized the respondent No. 2 to bring the money and car from her parents. She lived with the applicant happily. The applicant took the respondent No. 2 at so many places. His marriage was solemnized on 30.11.2011. On 09.07.2018, when she went to her parental house, her father, who is a police officer, managed to lodge a report against the applicant as well as other relatives. When respondent No. 2 denied to perform the marital obligations, the applicant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and before that, filed an application before the Conciliation Centre where respondent No. 2 appeared but not signed the conciliation proceedings. The respondent No. 2 lodged a report under pressure of her parents. The FIR is totally false and vague made for harassing him as well as his relatives and prayed to quash the alleged FIR.