RAMDAS UDASIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner/accused has filed this M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR dated 28.09.2018 in Crime No. 519/2018 registered at Police Station Beragadh, Bhopal.

(2.) Prosecution case in short is that respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR against the petitioner/accused that petitioner/accused is father- in-law of respondent No.2. Petitioner is residing in front of house of respondent No.2. On dated 28.09.2018 at about 11:00 am, respondent No. 2 was alone in her house and her husband-Raj Kumar Udasi had gone to electricity office Bairagadh at that time petitioner/accused entered into the room of respondent No.2 and caught her hand with bad intention. He tried to accompanied with her on the bed, she opposed then petitioner/accused slapped her on right cheek. He also abused filthy language and threatened her that he will take the house from her and kill her. Then she narrated all the story to her husband and tenant Govind and Jaggu. FIR was registered against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner/accused and his son Raj Kumar Udasi have the history of animosity due to which civil dispute was instituted which is still pending. Due to aforesaid dispute, respondent No. 2 along with her husband started living separately from the family thereafter compromise agreement was taken place between the parties and this regard petitioner has given all the streedhan to the respondent No. 2. On 28.02.2018 an agreement executed between the parties and it was decided that property will be partitioned as per agreement in settlement. As per the agreement limited interest has been conferred in favour of the husband-Rajkumar of the respondent No.2 by the petitioner. Petitioner/accused was in apprehension that he may be falsely implicated by the respondent No.2, therefore, by the way of abundant caution, petitioner/accused added clause 6 in the agreement which provided that the complainant party will not made any false complaint against the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 lodged a false complaint against him. Petitioner/accused has expressed apprehension to Incharge of Police Station that he might be falsely implicated by the respondent No. 2 on 26.09.2018. On 29.09.2018 Pujya Sindhi Panchayat submitted an application to the D.G.P. Police Headquarter, Bhopal for fair investigation of the case by Gazetted Police Officer. On 29.09.2018 Pujya Sindhi Panchayat submitted an application also to S.P. North, Bhopal same purpose. DIG, Bhopal issued a letter to S.P. North, Bhopal for fair investigation of the case. He further submits that petitioner is suffering from hemiparesis and right side of the body is completely paralyzed. It was not possible for the petitioner/accused to make assault on respondent No. 2 . So the story of prosecution is not probable, thus, no case under Sections 354 , 323 , 294 and 506 of IPC is culled out even if the entire prosecution story is treated to be gospel truth. The registration of FIR and continuance of criminal case against the petitioner/accused is a gross abuse of process of law. The entire story has been created and concocted by the complainant. Civil dispute is going between the parties. Therefore, the impugned FIR is false and vague. No prim-facie case is made out against the petitioner/accused. Therefore, quash the FIR. In support of his contention he has relied the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhisinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2013) 9 SCC 293 and Vineet Kumar and others Vs. Stae of U.P. and another reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369.