RAVI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the charge -sheet and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1043/13 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena.

(2.) BRIEF facts that would emerge from the FIR dated 3/1/2013 are that the marriage of the respondent No. 2 -Smt. Pratibha was solemnized with petitioner No. 1 -Ravi Parashar on 21/11/2007 as per Hindu customs and ritual rites. It is stated that in the marriage of her daughter, the father of respondent No. 2 had given some articles in the shape of dowry to the husband -petitioner No. 1 and his other relations. It is also stated that till one year, the petitioners kept the respondent No. 2 well but thereafter petitioners started raising demand of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and for non -fulfillment of their demands, respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental torture. Ultimately, respondent No. 2 was turned out from the matrimonial home on the pretext that she had not brought sufficient dowry. Hence, she lodged the report against the petitioners. Crime No. 8/13 was registered for committing offence under section 498A of I.P.C. and pursuant thereto criminal case is pending before the court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition inter alia submitting that the FIR was lodged with malafide intentions to harass the petitioners and that no case is made out against the petitioners as well as other family members.

(3.) CONTROVERTING the arguments aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/complainant, submitted that the FIR and the initial depositions of the witnesses prima facie disclose commission of the offence alleged and therefore the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed, at this stage. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 was subject to cruelty and harassment for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. The statements of witnesses on record corroborated the statement of the respondent No. 2 and proved the offence alleged, hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed for want of substance.