Narmada Shivhare and Bhagwan Lal Shivhare vs State of M.P.

N.K. Gupta, J.—1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicants have preferred the present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the registration of crime No. 350/2015 registered at police station Madhoganj, Dist. Gwalior for offence under section 323, 294, 506 r/w. section 34 of IPC.

Facts of the case, in short, are that the respondent No. 2/complainant, who is daughter-in-law of the applicants had lodged an FIR under section 498-A of IPC against the applicants and thereafter compromise took place between the parties and also registration of crime was quashed vide order dated 03/01/2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2253/2012. Thereafter, the complainant resided with her husband in a separate apartment. There was no connection of the applicants with the complainant on day to day basis. On 25/07/2015, the complainant had lodged an FIR that she went to the house of the applicants to enquire about her husband and, therefore, they abused the complainant with obscene words and also threatened that she would be killed in future. The applicant No. 1 pushed her and therefore, she fell down on the ground. However, no injury was sustained by her and therefore, she did not accept to get her medico legal examination. However, after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is true that charge sheet has already been filed before the trial court and the applicants have an opportunity to raise all such objections at the time of framing of charge. However, defence documents cannot be seen at the stage of framing of charge, whereas, such documents can be seen by this Court. Hence, it cannot be said that the present petition is not maintainable. The present petition is to be considered on the back ground that the respondent No. 2 had lodged an FIR under section 498-A of IPC against the applicants. Thereafter, she was permitted to reside separately. According to the complainant, she went to the house of the applicants herself to enquire about her husband because he did not visit to her apartment on that particular day.

If the contents of the FIR and the evidence collected by the prosecution is considered then it would be apparent that there was only one eye-witness viz. Omprakash who did not confirm that the complainant was pushed by the applicant No. 1 and when the complainant refused to get her medico legal examination then it appears that the allegations of pushing the complainant on the ground are prima facie not correct and therefore, no offence under section 323 of IPC is made out against the applicants.

Similarly, what were the words uttered by the applicants is not mentioned either in the FIR or in the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The eyewitness Omprakash did not say that the applicant No. 1 used filthy words during quarrel and, therefore, on record it is not available that the applicants have used obscene words. Similarly, it is mentioned in the FIR that the applicants told the complainant that she would be killed in future. However, at the time of incident, neither the applicant No. 2 had any weapon nor he assaulted the complainant and therefore, by giving threat to kill does not fall under criminal intimidation which may fall within the purview of section 506 of IPC. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicants.

After considering the aforesaid situation, where no alleged offence is made out against the applicants, it appears that since the complainant''s husband did not visit her house, the complainant had lodged a complaint to harass the applicants with presumption that the applicants had harassed her.

It is the settled view of the Apex Court held in the case of "Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another" {, (2012) 13 SCC 614} that the innocent person shall not be harassed by prosecuting him in a criminal trial. Hence, in the light of aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings of the trial court and registration of crime No. 350/2015 registered at police station Madhoganj, Dist. Gwalior.

On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants viz. Smt. Narmada Shivhare & Bhagwan Lal Shivhare is hereby allowed and registration of crime No. 350/2015 registered at police station Madhoganj, Dist. Gwalior is hereby quashed and consequently charge sheet filed against the applicants is also quashed.

The trial court is directed to drop the proceedings against the applicants.

Certified copy as per rules.