Prashant Shukla vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and reviewing the available documents, decided to dispose of the petition with a specific observation. The Court did not quash the FIR. Instead, it directed that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer/Police Officer as and when required for cooperation with the investigation. The Court also granted the petitioner liberty to raise his plea of alibi at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, implying that this defense would be considered during the trial. The Court's reasoning was that the plea of alibi and the merits of the allegations are matters to be decided during the trial, and it is not appropriate for the High Court to record a finding on these issues in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention regarding his residence abroad and the need for his cooperation with the investigation. The ratio decidendi is that pleas of alibi and the factual disputes regarding allegations in an FIR should be adjudicated during the trial, and the High Court's role in quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited to cases where the allegations are manifestly false or vexatious, or where there is a clear abuse of process. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition with the aforementioned observations and directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Prashant Shukla, sought to quash an FIR registered against him and others under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The FIR was based on a complaint by respondent no. 2, the petitioner's sister-in-law, alleging dowry demand and harassment. The complainant stated that she was married to the petitioner's brother on March 7, 2015, and after living peacefully for three years and having twin daughters, she was subjected to torture and harassment by her husband, the petitioner, her father-in-law, and mother-in-law for a dowry of Rs. 10 lac. She was sent to her parental home and later returned to her matrimonial home. The alleged incident of beating occurred on September 28, 2022, after which she returned to Gwalior and filed the complaint. The petitioner, residing and working in Calgary, Canada, contended that the complaint was false, mala fide, and intended to pressurize him. He argued that he had limited visits to India and that his high income made a dowry demand improbable. He also claimed he had no direct role in the alleged offenses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner for offenses under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of false implication, mala fide intention, and lack of direct involvement, particularly in light of the petitioner's plea of alibi and his residence in Canada? Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the complaint was lodged with mala fide intention and ulterior motive to pressurize and blackmail him. He asserted that he works as a Senior Software Engineer in Calgary, Canada, and has been a permanent resident there since March 31, 2017. He claimed to have visited India only four times between October 7, 2017, and January 16, 2022, and was in Gwalior during the COVID-19 lockdown from March 7, 2020, to January 16, 2022, while the complainant was living with her husband in Bangalore. He further contended that his high annual income of Rs. 69 lac makes a demand of Rs. 10 lac highly improbable and that he had no direct or indirect role in the alleged offenses. The FIR was lodged without proper inquiry and in violation of Cr.P.C. provisions. Contentions of the Respondent (State and Complainant): The counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the petitioner's contentions. They argued that the petitioner's plea of alibi is a matter for trial and cannot be decided by the High Court in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Singh vs. State of UP. They stated that the burden to prove the alibi lies with the accused. It was admitted that the petitioner had lived in India on multiple occasions. They further submitted that the petitioner, along with other family members, had harassed the complainant and her daughters. The investigation is pending, and the petitioner's presence in Canada makes it difficult to serve notices, indicating a lack of cooperation with the investigation.