HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No. 8129/2010
Amit Kumar Soni and others
-Vs-
State of M.P. and another
PRESENT : Hon. M.A.Siddiqui,J.
Smt.N.K.Mann , Adv. for petitioner.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, GA for State/respondent
no.1.
Shri T.Sheikh, Adv.for the objector/respondent
no.2.
ORDER RESERVED ON 11/02/2011.
ORDER PASSED ON 18/02/2011.
ORDER
(1) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary
powers of this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.
451/2010 registered by Police Station- Gadarwara,
District- Narsinghpur for alleged offence under
Section 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and also the subsequent
proceedings.
(2) In brief, the prosecution case is that petitioner no.1
Amit Kumar Soni is the husband, Anand Kumar
Soni petitioner no.2, is father-in-law and petitioner
no.3 Smt. Sangeeta Soni is wife of elder brother of
-2-
petitioner no.1 Amit Kumar Soni, Jethani of
respondent no.2 Smt. Poonam Soni.
(3) Undisputedly, marriage of respondent Smt. Poonam
Soni took place in the year 2006 at Katni and she
resided in her nuptial house at Katni. As dispute
arose, respondent Smt. Poonam went to reside in
her maternal house at Gadarwara, District-
Narsinghpur. Petitioner Amit Soni filed a case for
divorce under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act
on 18.5.10 in District-Katni for which respondent
Smt. Poonam was served notice on 13/07/10 and
on the next day she lodged FIR at Gadarwara Police
Station for which Gadarwara Police Station
registered Crime No. 451/10 under Section 498-
A/34 IPC and Section 3/4of Dowry Prohibition Act,
and afterwards filed challan. It is alleged that as per
FIR, the cruelty and demand of dowry took place at
Katni and nothing was done at Gadarwara, so
Gadarwara Court has no jurisdiction and falsely
report has been lodged in order to harass the
petitioner, so this FIR be quashed.
(4) Respondent no.1 is a formal defendant and
respondent no.2 Smt. Poonam defended the case. It
is submitted on her behalf that though FIR contains
-3-
no cause of action at Gadarwara, but FIR is not the
alone thing. As per statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of respondent Smt. Poonam, petitioner no.1
and 2 came at Gadarwara and demanded Rs.One
Lac and motor cycle and said that if the demand is
not fulfilled, she will not be taken back to Katni,
and they after leaving her at Gadarwara went away.
(5) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that as per
FIR, no case is made out so proceedings should be
quashed. She submits that it is crystal clear that
after filing the case for divorce, a false case has
been registered to harass the petitioners and to take
revenge from them. Learned counsel has placed
reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Bhura Ram
& Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 2008 SC
2666 in which it has been held for the purpose of
Ss.177 and 178 of Cr.P.C. that if all alleged acts as
per complaint relating to offence under Section 498-
A IPC took place in State of Punjab, complaint filed
in Court in State of Rajasthan where complainant
residing with her maternal relations, no cause of
action arose in Rajasthan, then the Magistrate at
that place had no jurisdiction to deal with the said
matter. But, as per above discussion, as per
-4-
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of respondent
Smt. Poonam, the demand and harassment also
took place at Gadarwara when she was left by
petitioners no.1 and 2 and was threatened that if
demand of dowry of Rs. One Lac and motor cycle is
not fulfilled, then she will not be taken back to
Katni and they left her at Gadarwara, so above
ruling has no application in the instant case.
(6) As far as allegations in the FIR are concerned,
whether they are genuine or fake has still to be
decided. As far as exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. are concerned, according to Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another (2005) 1 SCC
122 the Apex Court held that inherent jurisdiction,
though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in S.482
Cr.P.C. Power to be exercised ex debito justitiae to
prevent abuse of process of Court, but should not
be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. If on
consideration of the allegations in the light of the
statement made on oath of the complainant, it
appears that the ingredients of the offence or
-5-
offences are disclosed and there is no material to
show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or
vexatious, the proceedings cannot be quashed as
they are to be enquired into by the trial Court.
(7) Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that
no case is there against petitioner no.3 as there is
no specific allegation against her. Reliance has been
placed on a decision of Apex Court in Preeti Gupta
and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. AIR
2010 SC 3363 in which it has been held by the
Apex Court that where no specific allegations in
complaint are there against appellants, sister-in-law
and unmarried brother-in-law of complainant, then
complaint is liable to be quashed. But in the case in
hands, according to FIR and statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Poonam, there is
specific allegation that petitioner no.3 Smt.
Sangeeta Soni is the lady to whom the allegation is
that she is having illicit relations with petitioner
no.1 Amit Kumar Soni and she used to tease and
threaten respondent Smt. Poonam Soni.
(8) So, looking to the above circumstances of the case, I
find no ground to invoke the extra ordinary
-6-
jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 Cr.P.C.
Petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
(M.A.Siddiqui)
JUDGE
/02/2011.
Jk.