LexABHISHEK versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CASE DETAILS ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015) AUGUST 31, 2023 [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR AND S. V. N. BHATTI, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question pertains to quashing of the FIR and the Criminal Case pending before the magistrate against the appellants, mother-in-law and two brother-in-laws u/s. 498A IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Penal Code 1860 β s. 498A β Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 β ss. 3 and 4 β Harassment for dowry β In the midst of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, complaint by wife-daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law and brother-in-laws alleging that they subjected her to mental and physical harassment for dowry β Quashing of criminal proceedings: Held: There were certain glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies β Wife after leaving her matrimonial home did not choose to make a complaint against her in-laws in relation to dowry harassment for four year till the husband instituted divorce proceedings β Her allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, without any speciο¬ c details as to how and when her in-laws, who lived in diο¬ erent cities subjected her to harassment for dowry β Complaint shows that her motives were not clean and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws β Allegations are wholly insuο¬ cient and, prima facie, and do not make out a case β They are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are suο¬ cient grounds to proceed against them β Permitting the criminal process to go on against the in-laws would, thus, result in clear and patent [2023] 11 S.C.R. 507 : 2023 INSC 779 507 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 11 S.C.R. injustice β Thus, a ο¬ t case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power u/s. 482 to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings β FIR and the criminal case against the in-laws are quashed β Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 β s. 482. [Paras 18-23] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 β s. 482 β Quashing of FIR β When chargesheet was ο¬ led by the police while the petition ο¬ led u/s. 482 was pending β Power of the High Court: Held: High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition ο¬ led u/s. 482 to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is ο¬ led by the police during the pendency of such petition. [Para 11] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 7 SCC 59 : [2011] 8 SCR 815; Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another (2019) 11 SCC 706 : [2018] 13 SCR 1028; V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others (2019) 14 SCC 568 : [2018] 14 SCR 828; M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021; R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 : [1960] SCR 388; State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2022) 6 SCC 599; Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010) 7 SCC 667 : [2010] 9 SCR 1168; Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 : [2009] 14 SCR 1074; Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023 β referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2015 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in MCRC No. 2647 of 2014. 509 With Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015. Appearances: Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Anmol Kheta, Dushyant Dahiya, Kumar Kashyap, Kausar Husain, Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sunny Choudhary, Dr. Sasmit Patra, R. P. Singh, Shivang Rawat, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Nidhi, Mohit Girdhar, Sarthak Arora, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT SANJAY KUMAR, J. 1. Bhawna, the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015, married Nimish Gour in the year 2007. He, however, secured a decree of divorce on 05.09.2019 dissolving their marriage. Bhawna preferred First Appeal No. 1876 of 2019 against the said divorce decree and the same is stated to be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.