IN HISH COURT OF JUDICA_TURE AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. NO.M ^OF 2010 PETITIONER' Satyendra Mishra, son of Pt. o ..^y^&evraj Mishra, aged about 2_y years, resident of Ward No.g, ^Y^ .-^ ^)-^ ^\.p.^'"' "Station Para, Rajnandgaon, ^.-;-:'^Q7^^^ ]^"'~.^s-<" .••s'''^y ^ p£^s®n+4y-<(:l—E-14^Msw-^ddp&h- o,?*^;' ...-•-" ^(LW^V' •,<"&'-' \<:'/' ^yNagdc—&urg(CS^ -»-'.' Vs RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House In-charge, Police Station Rajnandgaon. PETITION UNDER SECTIQN 482 OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEbURE. 1973 '•<5l wt? HIGH COCTIT Q!F CHHATnBGARH AT BILASFUR SB : HOB'BLE MR. JU8TICE PRITIMKER DIWAKER CR.M.P.NO. 113/2010 PBTITIOMER RB8PONDBMT versus Salyendra Mlshra State ofCIihatdsgarh SIui Sandeep SIuwastava, coimsel for fhc pctttioner. Shri Paukaj Shdvastava, 'P.L. for fhe State. PETmOII IINDBR SBC?nON 482 OF THB CR.P.C. ORDBR (19.03.S»)10) The preseat petition filed under Scctfon 482 of fhe Code of Crimiaal Procedute ia for quashing fhe First Infonaation Rcport registered by the Police Statfon Rajaandgaon fbr fhe ofiences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of fhe IPC and Sectton 3/4 of flie Dowiy Prohibitton Act and fhe clasxge sheet subsequentfy filed fhereto in. respect of saiae oflFences. 2. Contention of fhe counsel for tfae petitioner is that the petitioner is a termiuated civil judge aad on 2.6.2008 Ae coiaplainant Smt Seema Mishra, wife of ffae' petitioner lodged a report before MahUa Thana, Duig xaentioiaing in fhe saane fhat her marriage was solenuuzed with fhe petitioner on 5.5.2007 as per fhe Hiadu customs aud sufficieat dowry was given by her paaents in the marriagp. However, after tfae marri^e she was subjected to cruel^ by her husband. It has becri furfher mentioncd ia flic coiaplaiat that the petitioner was having certaia aihncnt and ttus fact -was suppressed at the time of marriagc. Copy of the said coinplaint has been ffled by fhe petitioner as Annexure P/4. Hc subiiuts that fhereafter another coinplaint has been filed by fhe coinplaiaaat on 5.7.2008 before fhe Supermtendent of PoUce, Rajnandgaon agaiast the petitioner inakmg various allegations and in fhis coinplamt the aUeged cruelty on fhe part of fhe petitioner •^;i^^^ '% 4-. has also been pointed out. He subnuts fhat based on this secoiid coxaplaiat/FIR, mvest^atfon was done by thc poUcc and fhe charge sheet has bccn flled vide Annexure P/5 and fhe said cTaarge sheet deserves to be qiiashed on tfro grozmds firstfy, on merite (he complaixiant has ftdled to make out any case assasst the pctitiDner and secoadty, the cTaasyiK shect te 'bssed on the secoiid complaint made by the petitioner and fherefore no such chai^e sheet coidd havc been fited on the basis ofsubseqnent FIR when her fiist CTR dated 2.6.2008 has not beea acted upon by thc police aufhorities. According to him., the flrst FIR has been; mteationalty suppressed by fhe prosecution whfle entertammg flie subsequent FIR aad therefotc iBegality has' becn comnutted by the police aiithorities. Hc ~bas placedUus stroiig reliance upon fhe judgment reported in 1978 Cr«I»<T. 1122 Sonelal & Otttcrs Vs. Statie of Ottur SrwttsaSt, 197S CrJ^J. 1201 S.C. Soma Bhal Va. Stae of Qufnit, 1972 Qr.L^J. 233 Haslb Vs. Stfdw of aUuur, & 1993 CrJ,Mj. 3684 Stata »f AuUww p^teah Vs. Pu»uitt Kanatlu & oUiers. He subinils fhat even ff' fhe cntire caBe of tiie prosecution is taken as tt is fhe iagredients of Section 498-A IPC are not attracted in this case. 3. On fh.e other hand, it has been aagued by fhe Statc coimsd that if the first coxaplaiat of (he coisfSasnsaat has not been acted upon by fhe poUce aufliorities, fhe ffievsmce could have been rateed by fhe contplainant by saying that ss to why her complamt has iiot toeen entertained and fhjerefore the actmn of fhe poMce auftioritics is not flair but fhe petitioncr has absolutety no r^ht to sesy anyflung about the first coinplaint of fhe ccanpleuaaut He subinite that it appears fhat as no action was taken by the polioc aufhorities aad fherefore anofher report was lodged by tfae coinplamant aad this tiine to the supcrior authorily and the saaie has been acted upon by fhe poBce aiAhoritiCT aad fce case has been registered. He also submits fhat on fhe basis offhe first coiaplaint niade by tfac coinplainaat on 2.6.2008, no oficnce whatsoever was rcgistered by fhe poUce as prowaled under Section 154 of the Code of Crunfaial t -'sffi,^ i s ^" ^'"SWK-.'sSJ-S I>Tcxxdure aad fherefore under no circumstaaces it can be said fhat this subsequent complaint inade un 5.7.2008 is the sccond FIR, According to hiaa, the ciMaplainant laiight have inade fhe coinplaint on earlier poiat af tiine but once fh.e same has not becn duly registered by the poHcc aufborities or has been acted upon the saine cminot be tenned as first FIR. He submits that cven tf fhe firat coinplaint is taken iato consideratiDn, on the basis of llie said coinplaiut also, the offence under Scction 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowiy Prohibition Act is made out and therefore fhc police auttaonties are fuBy justified in filmgchai^e slteet agaiast the petitioner. He fiufher sttbmits that no prejudicc whatsoevcr has been causcd to fhe pctitioner and at the time of trial fhe petitioncr, if so desire, can takc fhe advantage by gnring the refercncc of earUer report but in fhc petition lutder Scction 482 of (he Cr.P.C. fhe chaige sheet itselfcannot be quashed. 4. I have heard counsel for flie paties. Prom the rccord as filed by the iKtitioaer it appears that on 2.6.%M)8 sonac coiaplaint was nadc by fhc coinplamaat Smt Seenaa Mislua aBeging in it ttiat her marriage was solemnized wifh fhe pctitioner on 5.5.2007 aad in fhe inarriage fhe deinand as made by flie petitioncr was fulfiUed by her widow mother. She states fhat uiunediatety after the martiage she was subjected to cruclly for demaad of dcwiy. She has furthcr stated flbiat fiiun fhc beguming the petidoncr was not lEeeping gaod healfh aad even not wiUixtg for toeatinent She bas stated that aumber of facts were suppiessed Sxaa. hcr at ffac time of tnarru^e and knowing fuUy wdl fhat fhe petttioner was not physK;aUy capable, he perfomwd fhe inarriage wifh her and even attet spoilmg her life thc petittoaer was not satisficd and after pressurizu^; her widow inothcr cash of Rs. 11 lacs aad ofher luxuiy ardcles wcre taken by him and the demahd continued in fature also. She has steted that fhe petittoner was provided sonie treatment at Bombsy and VeBore but even after retunuag froiu those plaees she was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner and his faiuity aienibers and fkey •sss.. ''^>-'" .•ev K«K"i' -^)- werc regularty demaading dowiy. Sfae has stated ffaat ^ she was subjected to cruelty by the pctitmner and IUB fanuty mcinbcis, to savc herselfshe fo Hving in her parental houae at Rajiiandgaon. She has stated that fhe petitioner is weU aware wifh fhe tegal pKiceedings and ftw law, has no r%ht to raisc aay such demand of dowiy and she cannot bc subjected to cruelly and thcrefore she had ixiade a tequest fbr action ^ainst the petitioner. At the time offiling chaHan the prosecution has fited various statements of the witnesses including fhat of fhe complainant namefy Sceina Mishra, Rita Tripattu sister of fhe coinplamaul, Sautosh Tnpathi, brofher of fhe coaiplainaat, Saraswati Tr^afhi, mofher of thc complamaut Bhagwan Das Yadav iieighbour, Sint. Durg Yadav, wife of Bhagwan Das, Madhu Mishra sister of fhe complainant, Ralresh Kumar biofhet-ia-law of fhe complalnant, Anil Sin^i Rajput, Auuiag Shiavastanra, Smt. Saroj Das, & Aslucsli. AU fhese witaesscs have naade serious aUegations of demand of dowiy and cruelly as done by the petitioncr. In fhe chai^e sheet, another handwritten lyped report of the complainant addressed to thc poliee station Rajnaadgaon dated 5.7.2008 is fhere and in fhe said appUcation also alm<»tsnnilar aUegstions have been made by her as earUer inade in fhe complaiat dated 2.6.2008. Thc minute scrutmy of fhe documcnts iiiakcs it clear Ifaat fhe coBBpIainaut was aubjected to cruclly by ffae prtitioner and fherefore prima facie case under Scctioa 498-A/34 of tt» IPC and Section 3/4 of fhe Dowiy Protubltfon Act is made out agaiast him. So ferr as the coateution of fhe petittoner that fhe charge sheet has been filed on fhe Itesis of the subsequent report dated 5.7.2008 te concemed, samc caaaotbe accepted at this stage. The petitioner has" feifcd to fite any document tbat on the basis of fhe coinplaint dated 2.6.2008 any FIR was registered by fhe poUce. 5. What appears foim ttie TCCOHI is that on t&e basis of the coaiplaint made by fhe coinplainant, on 5.7.2008 a detailed enquiry was conducted by the pcrilce aad after investigation chaBan has been filed. The judgment as cited by fhe pctitioaer is of no help to hun bccausc ahnost iu all these cases inltially FIR was registered and (tien fhe questmn for consuieration was whefher second FIR csan be registered or not. In fhe prescnt case, as atoeady subnutted there is no documeat showing tfac fact that at earUer point of tnae any FIR was registercd aad therefore the pctitioner cannot tabe advantage of fhe cases as cited by him. Moreover if oa fhe basis of first complaint no actton was taken by thc poUce fhen the coinplainant was fuUy justified in inakuig another complaint and if on that basis after detaUed investigation a ehaxge sheet has been filed llien it can not be said fhat any itlegality has been doiie by the prosecution. So far as fhe contentton of the couasel ftr thc petitioner fhat fhc iagredieats of Sectton 498-A IPC aad the pravisioas of dowiy Prohibition Act axc aot atteacted is concemed, I am. afi-aid that the ai^ument has no basis bccause flum. both fhe coinplaiats it is apparent fhat tfae complamant was subjected to cruelty aad fherAre the state aufhorities were fiiBy justified in proceedmg against fhc petitioncr. The petition has no substaace fhe sanie deseives to be and te accordiagty dismissed. 7. It is made clear ttot the obscrvation made by ttas Coiut are in respcct ofthe prescnt pctitton oxily and flie trial Court wiU not be iaflucnced by aay such observation and woidd decide the trial as per fhe evMence adduccd by fhe parttes. g^ Judge