Rajendra Kumar Girdharwal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicants had not made out a case for interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court found that there were specific allegations in the FIR concerning the incident of December 4, 2022, which prima facie constituted offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 34, and 506 of the IPC against the applicants. Regarding the delay, the Court noted that the FIR was based on a recent incident on December 4, 2022, and was lodged on the same day, thus there was no delay. The Court observed that specific overt acts of the two applicants were described, and there were no allegations against other distinct relatives not residing in the house, negating the argument of misuse of process. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were only for deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the trial court would not be influenced by them.

Facts

The applicants, Rajendra Kumar Girdharwal and Premlata, are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, Neha Negi. The complainant alleged cruelty by her husband and the applicants, leading her to leave her matrimonial home in August 2022. On December 4, 2022, the applicants allegedly trespassed into her father's house, assaulted her and her father, and disturbed household articles. An FIR was registered at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 34, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The applicants sought to quash the FIR and charge sheet.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR and charge sheet registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 34, and 506 of the IPC against the applicants are liable to be quashed on the grounds of omnibus allegations and delay in lodging the FIR? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 498-A, 323, 34, 506 IPC and Section 482 Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that the FIR was based on omnibus allegations and lodged ten years after their marriage, relying on judgments from this Court (Kul Bhushan Gupta) and Patna High Court (Kumari Priya Gupta) which deprecated quashing FIRs with such allegations against numerous relatives. Revenue's Arguments: The State contended that the FIR contained specific allegations regarding the incident on December 4, 2022, where the complainant and her father sustained injuries and were medically examined. They also stated that an independent government officer recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. supporting the allegations. The State relied on the judgment in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal.