The present Appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court-upholds-acquittal-of-accused-in-hebbale-property-dispute-case/
(hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the 2 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No 6054 of 2019
by which the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) praying to quash First Information Report viz.
As per the demands of the Accused-Appellants, Respondent No.2’s father gave about INR 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) cash, fifteen tolas gold jewellery, a diamond ring worth INR 50,000/-, clothes worth INR 60,000/- for the husband, apart from household articles and overall INR 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) was spent in the marriage functions.
It is further stated that the Appellants and husband of Respondent No.2 started abusing her that if a child was born, expenses would increase and the 4 father of Respondent No.2 had already cheated them. It was submitted that the Appellants No.2 & 3 hardly stayed at the matrimonial home at Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, as Appellant No 3 was working at Raigarh and living in company accommodation there with his wife (Appellant No 2) and that the Appellant No.1 was working in Pune being employed with Wipro Infotech Limited.
Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No.2 and her husband had, in fact, filed an application seeking divorce in Stockholm, Sweden on 09.07.2018.
It was submitted that the same is borne out from the fact that the husband of Respondent No.2 made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior on 18.09.2018, and only thereafter did the Respondent No.2 submitted her complaint, 3 days later, on 22.09.2018.
Learned counsel also drew the Court’s attention to the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gwalior dated 26.11.2018, by which anticipatory bail was 8 granted to the appellants in which it has been noted that no documents had been appended with the case-diary with regard to any injury(ies) suffered by the complainant/Respondent No.2, and also that she was living in Sweden. (1) SCC 335, wherein, submitted learned counsel, it has been held that if looking at the FIR, it cannot be said that prima facie no case is made out against the applicants, and that veracity of the allegations cannot be gone into at the stage of investigation, which is to be established by evidence to be produced before the learned trial court.
Case Title: PRIYANKA MISHRA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (2023 INSC 729)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001545-001545 / 2023
