Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040003622025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./157/2023 Harendra @ Milan Singh Bhadoriya and 7 Ors. Age: 32 Occupation : Address:S/o Shri Ram Naresh Singh Resident of GN 320 Sector-G Deen Dayal Nagar Gwalior District Madhya Pradesh Mobile No. 9869750197 2: Ram Naresh Singh Age: 63 Occupation : Address:S/o Lt. Pratap Singh GN 320 Sector-G Dingayal Nagar Gwalior (M.P) 3: Santosh Singh Rathore Age: 39 Occupation : Address:S/O Sh. Omprakash Rathore GL-423 Dindayal Nagar Gwalior (M.P). 4: Yogendra @ Ashu Bhadoriya Age: 39 Occupation : Address:S/O Sh. Ram Naresh Bhadoriya. Page No.# 2/6 5: Surjeet Singh Age: 45 Occupation : Address:S/O Lt. Dheeraj Singh House No. 41 Bhartaul Distt. Auraiya Fareha Muradganj UP. 6: Umila Singh Age: 62 Occupation : Address:W/o Sh. Ram Naresh Singh R/o GN 320 Sector Sector-G Dindayal Nagar Gwalior (M.P) 7: Priyanka Bhadoriya (Jully) Age: 32 Occupation : Address:W/O Sh. Pushpendra Singh Madhunagar Colony Houseno. 4333 Agra Cantt.. 8: Reena Singh Rathore Age: 36 Occupation : Address:W/o Sh. Santosh Singh Rathore GN 423 DD Nagar Gwalior (MP) VERSUS The State of AP and Anr. Age: 0 Occupation : Address:represented by Public Prosecutor. 2:Smti Rashmi Rekha Age: 23 Occupation : Address:W/o Shri Harendra @ Milan Singh Bhadoriya Permanent resident of Ward No. 1 Derapur PO and PS Derapur District Kanpur Dehat Page No.# 3/6 Uttar Pradesh. ------------ Advocate for : Rohit Jagwani Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP and Anr.: Advocate , appearing for 2, respectively. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 12.06.2025 Heard Mr. R. Jagwani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. L. Kurdu, learned Special P.P. SIT and Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the CPC 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR dated 05.01.2019 registered as Itanagar WPS Case No.02/2019 under section 498(A)/506/34 IPC read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the subsequent proceeding of the case. 3. The case of the prosecution/respondent as per the FIR lodged by the informant wife of the accused petitioner No.1 Harendra@Milan Sing Bhadoriya, is that she got married with the accused petitioner No.1 on 24.04.2018 however, soon after her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty, mental and physical torture and demanded for dowry by the petitioner No.1 and his family members. Even after paying the demanded dowry in different installments totaling about 20 lakhs, the petitioner again intimidated that in case she failed to pay another demanded dowry amount of Rs.20 lakhs, they will not allowed her to stay in the matrimonial house. It is further alleged that the informant is harassed and assaulted and forced to bring money from her parental home by the petitioners. Page No.# 4/6 4. Based on the above written complaint an FIR was registered under section 498(A)/506/34 IPC read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and investigated into. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed. The petitioners contends that the allegation against them are false, exaggerated and motivated and there has been improvement in the complainants version between the FIR and her statement recorded by the police. It is further submitted that the name of certain accused persons was inserted subsequently although they were not named in the FIR. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the case of the informant is found improved as the informant’s father is a police employee and it is suspected that he allegedly influenced the investigation. 5. While referring to the decision in the case Digambar and Another vs State of Maharashtra and Another in criminal appeal arising out of SLP(Crl)No.2122 of 2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients for an offence to be made out under section 498(A) of IPC requires that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injuries to herself or led to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life. The second part of the section referred to harassment with a view coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawfull demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand raised by the husband or his relative. It is submitted that in the present case, no allegation which would fulfill the requirement of the 2nd part of the section are found. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the informant submits that the allegation made in the FIR are consistent and supported by statements of Page No.# 5/6 other witnesses. The investigation reveals that there is a prima facie case found established against all the accused applicants and therefore, the quashing petition is pre matured and not maintainable at this stage. Regarding the registration of the case at Itanagar, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rupali devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in (2019) 3 SCC 225, wherein it was held that the Court at the place where the wife take shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of act of cruelty committed by the husband or relatives would dependent on the factual situation, also having jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under section 498 A of the IPC. 7. The learned Special P.P. (SIT) while supporting the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the case has just been charge sheeted against the accused persons, therefore they may face trial and file appropriate application for their discharge before the Trial Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents on record. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case State of Haryana and Others vs Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Suppl 1 SCC 335, laid down categories where quashing of FIR may be considered. However, the Court also held that whether allegations disclosed commissions of a cognizable offence, investigation of trial should not be stifled at the threshold. 10. In Sonu Gupta vs Deepak Gupta reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424, Page No.# 6/6 the Apex Court reiterated that the High Court should be slow in interfering at the stage of charge-sheet or trial unless the case is manifestly absurd or amounts to abuse of process. 11. In the present case, the investigating agency after completion of investigation has filed charge-sheet against all the accused petitioners after recording statements and collecting evidence. Whether there has been improvement in the complainant version or whether the allegations are exaggerated are matter of trial and appreciation of evidence, and the same cannot be conclusively decided at this stage in proceeding under section 482 Cr.PC. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances, and in light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.PC to quash the FIR and the charge-sheet at this stage. 13. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to raised all contentions available in law before the trial Court at the proper stage. It is further clarified that no observation made herein shall prejudice the case of either party at trial. 13. With the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant