TARUN AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Tarun And Others
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), has been preferred for quashment of First Information Report in crime No.116/2017, Police Station-Kotwalli, District Dhar, registered against the applicants for offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as also the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings.
(2.) The relevant facts in nutshell, for the disposal of the case, are that marriage of the applicant No.1-Tarun was solemnized with respondent No.2/complainant-Ritu on 12/05/2013 as per Hindu rituals and customs. Applicants No.2 &3 are the mother-in-law and father-inlaw of respondent No.2/complainant-Ritu. After marriage, respondent No.2 started living with her husband at Dhar. On 03/03/2017, respondent No.2 made a written complaint against the applicants alleging that her father has spent Rs. 5.00 lakhs in the marriage. For six months she was kept happily in her matrimonial house and thereafter applicants started demanding Rs. 5.00 lakhs from her as dowry. When the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, the complainant was harrassed mentally and physically by the applicants. Thereafter, she went to her parental house and since last two years, she has been living with her parents. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an F.I.R bearing crime No.116/2017 at Police Station Kotwalli, District Dhar, was registered against the applicants for offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that after the marriage, the respondent No.2/complainant resided with the applicants till 16/12/2014. It is further submitted that the complainant does not want to live in Dhar and she wanted to live in a bigger city like Indore or Bhopal. Applicant No.1 is running a dental clinic at Dhar and he has also the responsibility of his parents, therefore, he refused to shift his base to bigger city. When the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled by applicant No.1, then she started harassing the applicants by making false allegations against them. After leaving the house of the applicants, respondent No.2/complainant made a complaint against applicants at Mahila Thana, Bhopal. However, after due conciliation the complaint so filed by the respondent No.2 was settled by both the parties, by executing a written agreement on 01/11/2016, in which it was categorically stated that both the parties shall file a joint petition before the competent Court to seek divorce by way of mutual consent. Later on applicant No.1 filed a suit of divorce against the respondent No.2/complainant under section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar. The Family Court issued notice to the respondent No.2, which was served on her on 05/12/2016 and after that as a counter blast she has lodged a false report against the applicants regarding demand of dowry and harassment. After service of notice, the respondent No.2 did not appear before the family Court, hence an ex parte decree of divorce was passed on 20/03/2017 in favour of applicant No.1.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.