AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner/husband has come before this Court for quashing the FIR No.178/2019 registered under Sections 498-A, 323 & 506 of IPC.
Marriage between the parties (petitioner and respondent No.2) is not disputed.
The FIR lodged by the petitioner reads thus:-
2017
19.03.2019
Quashment is mainly sought on the grounds that the wife/respondent No.2 is suffering from juvenile myoclonic epilepfy and her own behaviour was
abnormal, even she was not ready to take treatment arranged by her husband and in-laws. Many a times her behaviour was cruel towards the
husband. The allegation of demanding dowry is totally false. Statement of account of the petitioner shows that several times, he had given money or
transferred it to the account of the wife. Even the husband had paid rent of her beauty parlour on some occasions. Whenever she was in need of
money, the petitioner had provided the same. Several complaints have been made by the petitioner and his parents against the abnormal behaviour of
the complainant, which shows that truth does not lie in the FIR but actually the things are different. It is the husband, who is victim of misbehaviour of
the wife (respondent No.2), therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and the same be quashed.
Prosecution has opposed the petition.
As reflected from the FIR itself that certain allegation of harassment, demand of dowry and cruelty have been made by the wife in the FIR. Her
police statements are on the same line. Witnesses have supported her case and all these prima facie constitute the offence alleged against the
petitioner.
The power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary in nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised sparingly and
only in the cases where attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use of power. The
Court can interfere in such exceptional cases where it appears from the face of the record that the prosecution is totally unwarranted for. There has
to be a material error manifest from the record that results in miscarriage of justice. At this stage sifting and weighing of the evidence is neither
permitted nor expected and the Court need not enter into meticulous consideration of evidence and materials at this stage.
Documents relied upon by the petitioner cannot be considered to disbelieve the allegation of the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner has to be
established them in his defence. The factual position before this Court is that certain allegations have been made by the respondent No.2, which have
been denied by the petitioner and this disputed question of fact cannot be decided by this Court while exercising extraordinary powers, therefore, no
case for quashing the FIR is made out. The petition preferred by the petitioner is bereft of merit, liable to be and is dismissed hereby.