IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. 5L)g /2011 PETITIONERS 1. 2. Ekatkhara Husain S/o Khalid Husain, aged about 28 years. ;../—l pfl.w....-'";'; S^T;- RESPONDENT Khalid Husain S/o Abdul Gafur, aged about 5'^.years, - f,s\^ y 3. Jaitul Khatun W/o Khalid Husain, aged about 50 years. >S43tfciAc| 5W^>^^ 4.^-KaUka- Khatun W/o. -Sh,wra}.^Ski'a ^ Jah.maS, aged about 29 yeare. 5. Shiraj Ahmed^.S/0 Visa-e Malik, 'aged about 34 years, All are resident of Bhadrapara, Balco Nagar, K&rba (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through: Police station Balco Nagar, District Korba(C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTIONj482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCBDURE CODE ff"l < '3's? '4l<<lc1<i, gi'ai<-l-i<c, R?TOT^: .&tAl^..S^ ^iiW^teant^i =hi«fiCT4ittireri ^ ss^s ip"; ?3fc; SB : Hon'bleShd Manindra MoharLS{inyastava^_J. 02-09-2011 I Shri Govind Dewangan, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer fo^ the State on advance copy. Heard. j By this petition, the petitioner ha^ prayed for quashing of the charge sheet as also crinrtinal proceedings, wtjich have been initiated against the petitioners for alleged commission of ioffence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 and 323 of the I.P.C. alle^ing Learned counsel for the petitionl Mohd. Ifitkhar Hussain was married marriage, parties had certain disputeq petitioner No.1 fited a fabricated wij Superintendent of Police, Korba Khatun and all the allegations are imp| Learned counsel further contended thal have been committed on 19-04-2010, by Smt. Khodeja khatun in the Police that this itself shows that the allegationj learned counsel for the petitioners is written complaint lodged by father of { diary statements of Khodeja Khatun, her mother-Smt: Sabina Khatun, even face value, no case for prosecution of i\ irs argued that the petitioner No.1- Ito Khodeja Khatun, and after the t. He submits that father-in-law of [itten complaint addressed to the cruelty meted out to Khodeja tobable, afterthought and baseless. one incident of cruelty is alleged to t)ut report to this effect was lodged ptation, after two days. He submits fc are motivated. Next submission of the allegations contained in the imt. Khodeja Khatun and the case father-Mohd. Faiyaj Ashrafl and lif they are taken as it is and on it's ie petitioners is made out inasmuch that Ifier sirra^l-y ^afl? ^ipirRw, ?Tsi*(i<?ifcif—ps/i40—2/2011—i,5o,ooo. '•-•/ T? ~3-£[ ^|A|[yi^. ®Tliyii(o,TsiCT'Wl{T sw t^IRK'(rfCT 3!lt?T -2-- as the allegations contained therein specific dates of aforesaid incident of| "WTdf'?''::ST3t'rf ^ are most vague, lacking and no alleged cruelty and the manner in which the cruelty was committed, ha^e been stated, and therefore, it is abuse of the process of law. Learned jsounsel further submitted that even though, wife of the petitioner No.1 is n|3t inclined to proceed with the case 1 and she has no grudge against the pjetitioners, on fabricated complaints lodged by the father of the complai}iant, the criminal case has been instituted. 1 On the other hand, learned Sts written complaint lodged by the father statements as also the medical report, petitioners is clearly made out. Learn that at this stage, such veracity or rel] could not be examined. Learned Stal medical report fully supports the draw criminal proceedings against the jte counsel submitted that from the jof Khodeja Khatun, FIR, case diary |a case for proceedings against the ibd State counsel further submitted jability of the prosecution witnesses te counsel further submits that the alle^ation of cruelty and is sufficient to iietitioners. The contents of the written of Smt. Khodeja Khatun shows that been leveled against the petitioners. that the victim-Kodeja Khatun was content of the complaint also shows has been alleged and it has also bee(i has been administered and an attemi Khatun. It is also stated in the com|plaint made by Mohd. Faiyaj, father ipecific allegations of cruelty have the complaint, it has been stated harassed in various manner. The more than one incident of cruelty stated that time and again, threat )t was made to murder the Kodeja conlplaint that on 19-04-2010, Kodej'a Ih trtat qrio^ ^Ao ^uiicwi, ii'ai-ii^iM— FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. a ^ 's^ ^rraT^T, ^gtwT?, R^raTp ^TT^ i :<, ifl S t ^3 Tumane °ji r« r< 3ii^TiR3r(^{; -3' ^PTOpfrl llTtRff ^ S~SV6 'rf° ^'3ifffff?~"r Khatun was bitterly beafen, resulting n head injury. The medical report •placed on reeord shows that Kodeja Khaftjn received three injuries including lacerated wound. In the casej diary statement of Kbdeja Khatun, specific allegations of cruelty have be^n leveled against her father-in-law and Mother-in-law. j ! It is not a case where the entire jallegations, even if it is taken on its face value, did not make out ingredierits of commission of offence under Section 498-A & 323 of fhe I.P.Q Moreover, there are no other circumstahces either stated by learned] out from the charge sheet to come tcounsel for the petitioners or borne to the conclusion that initiation of criminal case is an afterthought or njiotivated or merely an attempt to victimize the petitioners on account of cjispute amongst the parties. 1 do not find any ground to quash the criminal pifoceedings. In the result, the petition is dismi^sed. Noorders as to cost. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^iw<fl? ^sfl^rs^nwi, <(^-ri<{tirt(—Fs/i40—2/2011—i,5o,ooo.