Srikrishan Malviya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings of the trial Court relating to crime No. 439/2010 registered at Police Station Babai, District Hoshangabad for offence punishable u/s 498-A, 406, 494 /34, 506 of IPC.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, the complainant is the wife of one Kamlesh whose parents are applicants No. 1 and 2 and applicants No. 3 and 4 are brothers of Kamlesh. The complainant had lodged a complaint against Kamlesh and the applicants for harassment and dowry demand etc. After due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that Kamlesh, husband of the complainant/respondent No. 2 had moved a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act but, before conclusion of that petition, he is missing. At present, husband of the respondent No. 2 is missing. It is also apparent that no divorce took place between the parties and therefore, the applicants are relatives of the husband of the complainant. At present, there is no reason by which the testimony of the complainant and the witnesses may be brushed aside. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon''ble the Apex Court in case of "Geeta Mehrotra & another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another", (SLP (Cri.) No. 10547/2010, decided on 17.10.2012) but, in that case, the proceedings of such nature were quashed with the view that husband and wife may live peacefully after the compromise.

In the present case, no compromise took place between the parties and husband Kamlesh is missing and the applicants are continuing the harassment with the complainant and therefore, the factual position of the present case is not similar as mentioned in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra). Under such circumstances, where no compromise took place between the husband and wife, such position does not arise in the present case.

Since at present, the testimony of the complainant and witnesses cannot be brushed aside, the criminal trial lodged against the applicants cannot be quashed. The petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants appears to be misconceived and of no basis, therefore, it cannot be accepted.

Consequently, the present petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants Srikrishan Malviya, Kanti Malviya, Rajesh and Naresh relating to crime No. 439/2010 registered at Police Station Babai, District Hoshangabad is hereby dismissed. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.