MAN SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the charges framed under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide Crime No. 185/2019 against the petitioner and its entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 284/2019 pending before the learned JMFC, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad (M.P.).

(2.) The matter in brief is that the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before police station Itarsi stating that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 16.02.2016 under Hindu customs and rites. She stated that in marriage, her father has given sufficient articles and Rs. 2,51,000/- to the petitioner. After passing one year of marriage, the petitioner maltreated her on account of demand of dowry. He demanded a car, cash of Rs. 10 lakh and a house belongs to her father. She alleged that the petitioner tortured her mentally and physically. The petitioner has also not beared the expenses of her delivery.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner employed as a Clerk working in State Bank of India and posted at Satna, M.P. He is only son of his parents. He performed the marriage with respondent No.2 on 16.02.2016 under Hindu customs and rites. Petitioner stayed for a week with his mother along with respondent No.2 at village-Dehri and left for Satna with a promise to take the respondent No.2 after getting house. On 28.02.2016, the respondent No.2 left the Village-Dehri and went to stay with her father and told the petitioner that she cannot leave her father alone and was not ready to stay in Village-Dehri. Petitioner visited Itarsi nearly every month to persuaded respondent No.2 and when she adamantly refused to stay in the village, the petitioner got himself transferred to Itarsi from Satna in month of January 2017 and stayed with his mother at Village-Dehri and attending his bank office by daily going up-down from the village. She further submits that there was no change in the attitude and conduct of the respondent No.2, who refused to have any relationship with the petitioner and wanted to get rid of the mother of the petitioner and also wanted to petitioner to stay with her at her father's house. The petitioner was harassed by respondent No.2 and later she started threatening the petitioner to file a false case against him and his mother. After continuous nagging and threatening of respondent No.2, petitioner filed a petition under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad, M.P. on 22.03.2018. The notice was summoned to respondent No.2 in the matrimonial case No. 85/2018 and respondent No. 2 made her appearance by filing an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act on 05.09.2018 for interim maintenance and the Court below allowed her application and granted Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2 and her daughter vide order dated 27.09.2018. He is paying maintenance regularly, as awarded by the learned Family Court. But thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 23(1) of Domestic Violence and Protection of Women Act, 2005 claiming maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month and also filed a complaint against petitioner and his mother under Domestic Violence & Protection of Women Act, 2005. The application of respondent No. 2 has been allowed by learned JMFC, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad directed to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500/- (Rs. 1,500/- + Rs. 1,000/-) to respondent No.2 and her child vide order dated 04.04.2019. She further submits that respondent No.2 deliberately and with malicious intention wanted to harass and trouble him by one way or other. According to petitioner, the father of respondent No.2 took her from his house on 29.05.2017 after threatening the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a complaint before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Itarsi on 04.06.2017 for settlement in which he stated about the cruel behavior of respondent No. 2 and her father, after that the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint on 22.03.2018 before police station, Itarsi. Respondent No. 2 gave birth a child on 12.12.2017 at her father's house. Since the respondent No.2 has been living at her father's house since 29.05.2017, therefore, petitioner had no opportunity to torture her physically. According to respondent No.1, when she was pregnant, the petitioner beat her but prior to 22.03.2018 she did not file any complainant against him. The respondent No. 2 has lodged a delay FIR and no explanation has been given by her moreover there is serious irregularity is also found in the investigation process of the police as the FIR was registered on 12.03.2019 whereas the statements of the witnesses have been recorded on 07.03.2019 prior to lodging the FIR, which clearly indicate that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case with ill motive. She further submits that the learned trial Court erred in framing the charges for the aforesaid offence on the basis of false allegation made by respondent No. 2 just to harass the petitioner. She filed the criminal case as a counter blast of the matrimonial proceeding initiated by the petitioner. There is no independent witnesses who have affirmed the alleged cruelty made against the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint with malafide intention which would be an abuse of process of law. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner. With these grounds, she prays for quashment of charges framed under Section 498-A of IPC & Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide Crime No. 185/2019 against the petitioner and its entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 284/2019 pending before the learned JMFC, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad (M.P.). In support of her contention, she has relied on the pronouncement of this High Court in the case Kallu Khan & ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2013) M.P. 2038 and Mahesh Mathur (Dr.) & ors. Vs State of MP reported in ILR (2013) MP 2050