Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaishree Mahobe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3017
1 MCRC-13763-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13763 of 2024
JAISHREE MAHOBE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghuwar Prajapati - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Deepak Sahu - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of First Information Report No.
169/2022 dated 6.4.2022 registered at Police Station Mohkhed, District
Chhindwara for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of Indian
Penal Code and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The facts in nutshell reveal that the marriage of brother of the
present petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 2 on 6.12.2020 and
respondent No. 2 after marriage did not discharge her marital obligations and
later on even refused to cohabit with the brother of the petitioner.
Ultimately, respondent No. 2 lodged F.I.R under Section 498-A of Indian
Penal Code and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act levelling the allegations
of cruelty under the garb of demand of dowry against family members of her
husband including the petitioner. Thus, seeking quashment of F.I.R No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 23-01-2025
10:58:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3017
2 MCRC-13763-2024
169/2022 this petition has been filed.
3 . Counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R as well as the
statement of witnesses clearly reveal that so far as the petitioner is concerned
only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled. Against petitioner,
there are no specific allegation and no specific instances of cruelty has been
mentioned in the F.I.R nor in the statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. It is also contended by the counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is
living separately and, therefore, she was not even remotely connected with
the incidents which are mentioned in the F.I.R. It is thus contended by the
counsel that the implication being based on omnibus, general and vague
allegations, the F.I.R and ensued proceedings deserve to be quashed. In
support the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of
Apex Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 SCC OnLine SC
1083], Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and
others [(2022) 6 SCC 599] Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand
and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667].
4. Per contra counsel for respondent State as well as respondent No. 2
have opposed the prayer and it is contended that by them that the petition
deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, the F.I.R, prima facie consists
of allegation against the petitioner. The allegations are specific. The
petitioner along with other co-accused subjected the respondent No. 2 to
cruelty and torture. There was demand of dowry and under the garb of said
demand, the respondent No. 2 was treated with cruelty. Counsel for
respondents accordingly submitted that as the F.I.R prima facie contains the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 23-01-2025
10:58:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3017
3 MCRC-13763-2024
allegation, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of the
submissions the counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in Smt. Laxmi Pandey v. State of M.P. and another
(M.Cr.C No. 56817/2023) and Manju Gupta and others v. State of M.P. and
others (M.Cr.C No. 39683/2024).
5. No other point is pressed or argued by any of the counsel.
6. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
7. Having considered the submissions perusal of record reflects that
the following F.I.R was lodged against the petitioner and accused persons.
”1. यह क आवे दका का ववाह अनावेदक मांक 1 के साथ सामा जक र ित
रवाज के अनुसार दनांक 06.12.2020 को सप न हुआ था। 2. यह क
आवे दका एवं अनावेदक मांक 1 का दामप य जीवन अनावेदक मांक 1
बाहर रहने के कारण सुखमय न रहते हुये दख ु मय रहा। यो क अनावेदकगण
ारा आवे दका के प रजनो को िम या जानकार दे ते हुये आवे दका से
अनावेदक मांक 1 से ववाह स प न करवाया गया था। अनावेदकगण ारा
आवे दका के प रजन को यह जानकार द गई थी क ववाह समप न होने के
प ात ् आवे दका अनावेदक मांक 1 के साथ जहां अनावेदक माक 1 नौकर
करता है वहां रखेगा। परं तु ववाह स प न होने के प ात ् अनावेदक मांक 1
आवे दका को अपने प रजन के पास छोड़कर चला गया। 3. यह क आवे दका
अनावेदक मांक 1 ारा अपने प रजन के पास छोड़े जाने के प ात
अनावेदक मांक 1 ारा आवे दका से कभी भी संबंध था पत नह ं कया गया
न ह फोन ई या द पर चचा क जाती रह । आवे दका ारा अनावेदक माक 1
से मोबाईल पर संपक था पत करने का यास कया जाता रहा परं तु
अनावेदक मांक 1 ारा मोबाईल पर भी आबे दका से चचा नह ं क जाती
रह । अनावेदक मांक 1 के प रजन अनावेदक मांक 2 से 5 आवे दका को
यं य इ या द कसकर ता ड़त करते रहे जससे आवे दका मानिसक प से
ता ड़त रह आवे दका का दामप य जीवन दख ु मय रहा। 4. यह क अनावेदक
मांक 1 के प रजन अनावेदक कमांक 2 से 5 बात बात पर आवे दका से यह
कहते रहे क अनावेदक मांक 1 12,0000.00 (बारह लाख पये ितवष
कमाता ता है । । उस हसाब से उसे ट का व प तेरे मायके प ारा
10,00000.00 दस लाख पये दया जाना था जो नह ं दया गया। अनावेदक
मांक 1 सा टवेयर इं जीिनयर है । इसके प ात ् भी तेरे मायके प ारा कार
वाहन नह ं दया गया। यह कहकर आवे दका को घरे लू ताड़ना दे ते रहे
आवे दका का जीवन वप ीय त रहा। 5 यह क आवे दका एवं
अनावेदकगण फरवर माह म यह सुलह ह क गयी थी क भ व य म
आवे दका को कसी भी कार से ता ड़त नह कया जायेगा तथा आवे दका
सुखमय जीवन यतीत करे गी इस कार क समझाईस दे कर आवे दका को
अनावेदकगण अपने साथ महलपुर लाये तथा आवे दका के जेवर ई याद
िछनकर घर से िनकाल दया। आवे दका कसी तरह से मु कल से दख ु दद
झेलते हुये अपने मायके चली गयी थी परं तु कुछ माह बाद अनावेदकगण
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 23-01-2025
10:58:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3017
4 MCRC-13763-2024
समझाईश दे कर पुनः ले गये। इसके बाद पुनः अनावेदकगण के ारा
आवे दका को ता ड़त करने पर दनांक 30/06/2021 को आवे दका अपने
मायके िम ा कालोनी राजपाल चौक िछ दवाड़ा आकर रहने लगी। आवे दका
के ारा प रवार परामश के िछ दवाड़ा म अनावेदकगण के व आवेदन
प दया गया था इसके बाद आवे दका के ारा वन टाप से टर िछ दवाड़ा म
आवेदन दया गया था जसक सुनवाई दनांक 07/03/2022 को हुई थी जसम
अनावेदकगण को काउं सिलंग हे तु बुलाया गया था जहां पर भी अनावेदकगण
के ारा कोई सुलह नह ं क गई तथा वन टाप से टर के ारा आवे दका को
कानूनी कायवाह करने हे तु िनदश दये गये थे। इस कारण म आज अपनी मां
यशवंती बघेल के साथ रपोट करने थाना आई हू।ं अतः महोदय जी आपसे
िनवेदन है क उ मामले क उिचत कायवाह क जाये। दनांक 29/03/2022
आवे दका सोनम गोनेकर मो.नं. 8103326473”
8. Perusal of F.I.R reflects that against the present petitioner no specific allegations were
levelled. On the contrary the allegations were general and omnibus and in all the
allegations, it was stated that there was demand of dowry by the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 5
therein including the present petitioner. There were no specific instances on which such
demand was made nor mention of any instances of cruelty so far as the petitioner is
concerned.
9. The Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan Kausar (supra), has
held in paragraphs 16 and 18 as under:
“16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba
Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC
(Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6).
“6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the
distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and
dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in
on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of
their involvement in the crime are made out.”
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents
of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations
are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that
“all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of
terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein
i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in
furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This
simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role
played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be
said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes.
Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against
the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 23-01-2025
10:58:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3017
5 MCRC-13763-2024
allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants
are concerned, the allegations made against them being general
and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.”
10. In view of the aforesaid, as the implication of the present petitioner
is based on omnibus and general allegation, this Court is of the view that the
entire proceedings so far as they relate to present petitioner stand quashed.
Accordingly the F.I.R No. 169/2022 dated 6.4.2022 registered at Police
Station Mohkhed, District Chhindwara for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 and ensued proceedings so far as they relate to petitioner stand
quashed. The petitioner stands discharged. Bail bonds, if any, also stand
discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
VKT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Signing time: 23-01-2025
10:58:01
[ad_1]
Source link