The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by family member of a husband challenging criminal proceedings alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court said that a prima facie case necessitating investigation has been established based on the allegations presented.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia emphasized: "In order to prosecute the near and dear relatives of the husband of the complainant, the allegations must be clear, specific and should not be vague, omnibus and general"

The case before the Court involved a retired line supervisor, who sought to quash an FIR registered against him at the Women Police Station, Panna. The FIR alleged dowry harassment and mistreatment against her husband and other family members, including the applican. The informant claimed she had been subjected to physical abuse and demands for additional dowry after her marriage in May 2018.

During the proceedings, his Counsel argued that he had minimal contact with the complainant's family for over three decades, residing at a considerable distance from their matrimonial home. The Defense contended that he was falsely implicated and emphasized the need for a fair investigation to ascertain the veracity of the allegations.

The Court , referencing precedents from the Supreme Court, stressed the requirement for specific and substantiated allegations when implicating distant relatives in dowry harassment cases. Citing cases such as Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P., the Court highlighted that vague and generalized accusations could weaken the prosecution's case against actual culprits.

The Court also acknowledged the complainant's right to seek legal remedies, including challenging the manner of investigation and seeking discharge or quashing of charges if no substantial evidence links the accused to the alleged crimes. However, it reiterated that the burden lies on the complainant to present concrete evidence of wrongdoing.

The Court declined his plea to quash the FIR, noting that a prima facie case necessitating investigation had been established based on the allegations presented. Additionally, the Court cautioned against attempts to influence the investigation process or seek changes in investigating agencies, reaffirming its stance on judicial supervision versus monitoring in criminal investigations. "Merely because the applicant has made an application to the Superintendent of Police for free and fair investigation, the applicant cannot claim that the Police must investigate from his point of view also," it said.

Consequently, the Court ordered, "Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that prima facie case is made out warranting investigation. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed."

Cause Title: R.D. Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Ram Bihari Gautam

Respondent: Advocate Mohan Sausarkar

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Gurpal Singh AhluwaliaMadhya Pradesh High Court

Sukriti Mishra