The present Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the prayer that FIR being I-Cr No. 220 of 2011 registered with Deesa City Police Station may be quashed and set aside qua the present Petitioner.
Heard learned Advocate Mr.Chaitanya S. Joshi for the Petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the ingredients for the offence under Section 304B are not attracted or fulfilled. For that purpose, he referred to the provisions of Section 304B and submitted that it has to be established that, "the woman was subjected to cruelty or the harassment" and that too in connection with the demand for dowry. He submitted that there is no such evidence. He also referred to the details with regard to the manner of the incident and tried to submit that the injuries which are referred to are not reflected in the PM report. Learned Advocate has also submitted that though the allegations are made, infact nobody was in the house when the incident occurred. Therefore, as the ingredients for the alleged offences cannot be said to have been fulfilled, the present FIR may be quashed. He submitted that atleast qua the Petitioner, it may be quashed. It is submitted that the allegation is for Rs.50,000/- and the financial condition of the Petitioner is very sound and there was no reason or occasion for making any such demand.
Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2005) 7 SCC 69 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. And Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque And Another, (2005) 1 SCC 122.
Though the submissions have been made, it is well settled that the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 482 of Cr.PC is very limited and the Court has to exercise such inherent jurisdiction with care and circumspection as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judicial pronouncements. It is also well accepted that at the stage of quashing, the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on probabilities and has to consider the averments and the allegations in the FIR whether they prima facie constitute an offence or not. From a bare reading of the allegations in the FIR, it can hardly be said that the ingredients for the offences are not made out.
The submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Joshi referring to Section 304B are required to be appreciated and the submission that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry has to be established prima facie, is misconceived as it is a matter of evidence at the trial and every detail is not required to be mentioned. The allegations or the averments in the FIR have to be considered prima facie for the purpose of the alleged offences. Further, the submission that the injuries alleged are not reflected in the PM report is again a matter in the realm of appreciation of evidence at trial and the Court is not required to mention the evidence at this stage merely because some contentions have been raised.
The reliance placed by the learned Advocate Mr. Joshi referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan and Another (supra) will not have any application as it was with regard to the offence under Section 420 in a given set of facts which was by abuse of process and therefore the Court had made the observations.
Similarly, in a judgment in case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. And Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque And Another (supra), the Court was required to consider a different set of offences where the limitation period was also provided for filing the complaint, which is not the case here. It is also required to be mentioned that while considering the offence alleged in the facts of the present case with regard to the dowry death and the legislative intention under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the specific provision added by way of amendment in the IPC referring to Section 498A and 304B cannot be overlooked to quash the complaint itself without even proper investigation. The submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage at the face value without any supporting material.
Therefore, in light of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the scope of Section 482, including the observations made in case of Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, AIR 2008 SCC 1614 and in case of Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2008 SCC 2781, the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
(Rajesh H.
Shukla,J) Jayanti* Top