HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.899 of 2010 APPLICANTS: 1. Shiven Sanghavi, S/o late Shri Balkrishan Sanghavi aged about 39 years 2. Smt. Pramila Sanghavi, W/o late Shri Balkrishan Sanghavi aged about 67 years Sri Nikhil Sanghavi, S/o late Shri Balkrishan Sanghavi, aged about 43 years 4. Smt. Sonal Sanghavi, W/o Shri Nikhil Sanghavi, aged abut 42 years. All are resident of Opposite Press Club, Nayapara, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Jamul, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Nupur Sanghavi, wife tof Shiven Sanghavi, aged about 36 years, presently residing at Plot No.117, Near EktaChowk, Kailash Nagar, P.S. Jamul, Distt. Durg (C.G.) {Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973} Present: Mr. Saurabh Dangi, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.1. Mr. Ashish Surana, counsel for respondent No.2. NON-APPLICANTS: Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (6-4-2011) 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of criminal proceeding pending against them before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No.1284/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and 4 ofthe Dowry Prohibition Act. . i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition, copy of charge sheet and other documents. r\ \éY 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that on the basis of omnibus and bald statement against the petitioners relating to demand of dowry and commission of torture & cruelty, continuance of criminai proceeding against the petitioners would only be groundiess and abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel further argued that this is case of second marriage of the complainant/respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1. The petitioners have not demanded any dowry and have not committed torture & cruelty. No specific allegation has been made against the petitioners relating to commission of aforesaid offence. Even otherwise,'as per case of the prosecution, substantial part of the incident took place before 2005 and same is barred in terms of Section 468 of the CrPC. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, in which the Supreme Court has held that the Court is required to scrutinize minutely the allegation made in the complaint and required to be more careful in'dealing with complaint and cases pertaining to offences like Section 498A of the IPC in the present scenario of the society. . On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 opposed the petition and submitted that at the time of considering the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioners are required to show that continuance of criminal proceeding Would amount to abuse of process of the Court and that the prosecution has not collected any material against the petitioners for continuance of criminal proceeding against them. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant has made clear allegation against the petitioners that they have committed torture and cruelty upon her, and demanded and received dowry, they have threatened the complainant and have deserted her since 2008. All these allegations are prima facie sufficient for taking cognizance and proceeding against the petitioners for the offence punishableunder Sections 498A of the IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. . This is petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. Scope of interference in terms of Section 482 of the CrPC is limited. Power under Section 482 of the CrPC is exceptional in nature and should be used sparingly. ' . While dealing with exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mls. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharaful Haque and others, AIR 2005 C 9, has held thus, “8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. it only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends ofjustice... . In order to make out the case of quashment of criminal proceeding, the petitioners are required to show that if the allegation made in the compiaint is admitted in its face value, same wouid not be sufficient for proceeding against the petitioners or for framing of charge against the petitioners, In the ‘present case, as per the FIR, the compiainant has made specific and clear allegation against the petitioners that they have committed torture and crueity upon her and they have even threatened her to kill her and her child. Definitely, this is case of second marriage despite of this the petitioners have deserted the complainant i.e. wife of petitioner No.1 since 2008. Desertion of the complainant by itself is sufficient to constitute torture & cruelty. In the present case, allegation made in the charge sheet is sufficient for proceeding against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant and the witnesses have not made bald or omnibus allegations against the petitioners. I do not find any case of exercising the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction for quashment of criminal proceeding against the petitioners. . Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in Iimine. . I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sdl- T.P. Sharma judge Soma S