- (1.)By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner challenged the entire proceedings in connection with Criminal Complaint Case No. 329/08 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aron District Guna (MP).
(2.)The facts, in brief, as shown in the complaint filed before the Criminal Court at Aron, is that the daughter of petitioner-accused Ramnarayan was married to Ajay Kumar Soni r/o Aron District Guna. After sometime of marriage, the relations between the couple became strained on account of illegal demand of dowry by the in-laws family. Consequently, wife Manisha left her matrimonial house and lived in the house of her parents at Sihore (M.P.). Several criminal maintenance and matrimonial proceedings initiated which are pending before the courts. The respondent No.l filed the complaint dated 4th April 2008 before the Criminal Court stating that his father-in-law (i.e., the petitioner herein) who was in service of Forest Department asked him to arrange Rs. two lacs for his son-in-law's government job as he was an influential person, having sound backing. It is stated that then he demanded his share in the property from his father and got Rs. One lac and Fifty Thousand from his father. He sold out his agricultural land situated in Village Vrindawan for a consideration Rs. Fifty Five thousand and eight hundred on 18th June 2007. Thereafter, in the presence of his father, namely, Shri Ambica Prasad Soni and other persons namely Munna Lal Jain and Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, handed over Rs. Two Lacs to the accused/his father-in-law Ram Narayan Sonl on 26th August 2007. On 15th November 2007, the petitioner-accused brought his daughter (wife of respondent No.l) to her parental house for delivery of a child. It is alleged that after birth to a child, the petitioner did not send back his wife to his house. Several criminal, maintenance and matrimonial cases were filed against him and his family members in the courts at Sihore. The accused also did not return the amount which he received for his Government service. Therefore, f the respondent No.1 filed the criminal compLalnt and trial is in progress against him.
(3.)The learned counsel on behalf of petitioner contended that the petitioner did not commit the offence as alleged in the compLalnt. Prima fade, no ingredients of offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. appears against petitioner. The compLalnant had filed this compLalnt against him with an ulterior motive to create pressure on the petitioner and his daughter to file compromise in all criminal, matrimonial and maintenance cases, pending against him before the criminal/ matrimonial courts at Sihore. There is no cogent evidence to prove that the petitioner ever got any sum for government service of compLalnant. There is no chance of conviction of petitioner, therefore in the light of the decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal & others, 1992 AIR(SC) 604. and the contentions putforth above, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Aran, be quashed. In support of the petition, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex court in the cases of State of Hatyana v. Chaudhari Bhajan Lal (supra) Reshma Bano v. State of U.P, 2008 5 SCC 791.