MANISH RAGHUVANSHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the applicants invoking the inherent powers of this court, for quashing the FIR dated 24.2.2018 registered by Police Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another Station Lateri, District Vidisha, in Crime No. 33/2018 alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated against applicants No. 1 to 3, who are husband, brother-in-law (Jeth) and mother-in-law, respectively of the victim/respondent No.2.

(2.) The prosecution story in nutshell is that the applicant No.1 has married with the non-applicant No.2 on 10.6.2003 at Guna. After the marriage, the applicant No.1 and complainant started residing at Royal City, Tahsil Sironj, District Vidisha, whereas the applicants No.2 and 3 were residing separately in main market, Tahsil Lateri, District Vidisha. It is alleged by the complainant that after the marriae, husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law started demanding dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- whereas as per complainant, her father had given jewelry of approximately Rs.15,00,000/-. The applicant No.1 used to torture the complainant. It is further mentioned in the complaint that from the wedlock of applicant No.1 and complainant, two children were born, namely, Lakshita and Daksh. It is alleged by the complainant that on 18.2.2018, the complainant lodged the report at Police Station, Guna regarding demand of dowry, however the same was transferred to Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha and thereafter the FIR has been registered as aforesaid. Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that the allegations made in the FIR are not correct and the applicants have been falsely implicated, therefore, the registration of the FIR is itself bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law. The applicants No.2 and 3 are residing separately from the applicant No.1 in a different Tahsil, therefore, there is no possibility of the applicants No.2 and 3 having indulged in day-to-day affairs of applicant No.1 and complainant. The allegations made against the applicants No.2 and 3 are vague, non-specific and therefore, continuance of a case under Section 498-A of IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is totally illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 and the complainant were having good relation and they have taken care of their children, who are studying in convent school. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that complainant herself has gone with one Manish Malviya, resident of Harda as she was having certain intimacy with him. The brother of the complainant lodged the missing report No. 12/2018 at Police Station, Guna wherein it is clearly mentioned that the complainant had gone at her own along with two children with said Manish Malviya. Even as per the report and the message, she was seen with Manish Malviya, resident of Harda, on 19.2.2018 along with two children. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another is roaming with some other person and since she was caught, a false case has been registered against the applicants for demanding dowry. It is also submitted that there is no specific allegation or detail regarding the date when the alleged demand was made and cruel treatment was done with her. Rather, the applicants purchased some properties in the name of complainant at twothree occasions. If the intention of the applicant was at all to harass the complainant, then certainly he would not have purchased the properties in the name of the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant/respondent No.2 is trying to falsely implicate the present applicants as she wants to remain with some other person and the alleged report made by the complainant is nothing but an attempt to save her prestige since she was caught by the family members with her paramour. On these premises, learned counsel for the applicants prayed for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the applicants. Leaned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of UP [2017(3) MPLJ (Cri) 178], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, dealing with the situation in which false reports are being filed under Section 498-A of IPC, has issued detailed guidelines to deal with the cases under Section 498-A of IPC.