M.Cr.C. No. 8409 of 2014. Case: Premsingh and Ors. Vs Mithlesh Kunwar and Ors.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)

Case NumberM.Cr.C. No. 8409 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: G.P. Singh, Learned Counsel and For Respondents: Ramesh Yadav, Learned Counsel
JudgesJ. K. Jain, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 34, 498A
Judgement DateApril 30, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)


J. K. Jain, J.

  1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"] has been filed for quashment of FIR in regard to Crime No. 91/2014 registered at Police Station Kalipeeth, District Rajgarh for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC.

  2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that on 06.07.2011 non-applicant No. 1 was married with applicant No. 1. Applicants No. 2 and 3 are respectively father-in-law and mother-in-law of non-applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 1 resided together as husband and wife hardly for 5 days and thereafter non-applicant No. 1 had left her matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. On 25.05.2014, non-applicant No. 1 submitted a written complaint to officer-in-charge, Mahila Desk P.S. Rajgarh stating that applicants used to harass and beat her in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore she has to reside with her parents. Even on 25.05.2014 applicants came to her parental home and threatened her that they will allow to keep her with them when her parents fulfil the demand of dowry. On this basis P.S. Kalipeeth has registered Crime No. 91/2014 against the applicants for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and after completing investigation, filed the final report against the applicants before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh. The applicants have filed this petition on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR are false and allowed to continue this prosecution is misuse of process of law, therefore, the FIR and further proceedings be quashed.

  3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that admittedly non-applicant No. 1 resided with the applicant No. 1 hardly for 5 days and thereafter she left her matrimonial home and did not return. Applicant No. 1 husband has made sincere efforts to take her back but the same go in vain. Thereafter applicant No. 1 has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and on 30.09.2013 a decree has been passed against her then as a counter blast she has lodged the report. In the said report, there is an omnibus statement against the applicants about the harassment in connection with demand of dowry. It is highly improbable that only in 5 days when non-applicant No. 1 resided in her matrimonial home, she was so harassed that she has to left her matrimonial home.

  4. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the FIR is lodged with a view to harass...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT