PRADEEP MAVAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section has been filed seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.137/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A , 506 and 34 of IPC.

(2.) It is alleged by counsel for the petitioner that the whole family has been implicated in the case. As per prosecution story, the marriage has taken place on 30.04.2012 and Rs.1,00,000/- is given in cash and alongwith other jewellery and household articles in total Rs.8,00,000/- were spent in the marriage. Thereafter, the allegations are made that less dowry is given in marriage and started demanding more dowry from the wife/respondent No.2 and thereafter, they started harassing the respondent No.2 and 14.05.2018 they have left her at her parental house stating that they will keep her when she will bring Rs.1,00,000/- and motorcycle. In the aforesaid demand could not be fulfilled therefore she was not taken back to her matrimonial house by her husband and inlaws. She was being harassed for demand of dowry. Therefore, the complaint was made by her on the basis of which FIR was registered at Crime No.137/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A , 506 and 34 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has alleged that the aforesaid FIR has been registered that on the basis of complaint made by wife on 16.05.2018 to the Superintendent of Police, District Morena and complaint being made to the Station House Officer, P.S. Banmore, District Morena on 17.05.2018 and complaint made to Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Padav, Gwalior on 26.07.2018. It is alleged that application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has already been filed for restitution of conjugal rights and another application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by wife claiming maintenance. Despite of the aforesaid two applications, the FIR has been registered subsequently without raising any reasons were known to the wife/respondent No.2. It is further alleged that the whole family has been falsely implicated in this case and the respondent No.4 who is residing separately from the family has been roped into case. In these circumstances, he has prayed for quashment of the FIR.