Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR for offences including Section 354 IPC lodged by a daughter-in-law amid a family dispute over eviction ordered against her. The Court found the FIR vague, retaliatory and a criminal colouring of a family dispute, and quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings along with the preliminary enquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2024:CGHC:43046-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 338 of 2024
1 - Firoz Khan S/o M I Khan Aged About 51 Years R/o Plot No. H-10, Dubey Colony, Mowa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Smt. Parveen Khan W/o Shri M I Khan Aged About 74 Years R/o Plot No. H- 10, Dubey Colony, Mowa Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Thana Incharge Police Station Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Nikhat Parveen W/o Shri Parvez Khan R/o Through Late Shri Shafi Khan House No Ews 58 Sector 3 Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 / State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. N.N.Roy, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
06/11/2024
1. The petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):
“A. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order quashing setting aside the F.I.R. dated 28/10/2022 bearing Crime No.
2
379/2022 Along with Challan No 112/2023 Dated 24.04.2023 offence registered under section 354, 294,323, and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 registered before the Police Station Pandri Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Annexure A/1) in the interest of justice.
B. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order quashing setting aside the complaint dated 11/01/2024 preferred by the private respondent no 2 before respondent no 1 whereby respondent no 1 has initiated the preliminary enquiry (Annexure A/2)”
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioner No. 1 is elder brother of the husband of the respondent No. 2, namely Parvez Khan and petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law of respondent No. 2. The marriage between respondent No. 2 and Parvez Khan took place on 22.12.2002. Parvez Khan works in a private Company at Korba. When the respondent No. 2 was pregnant, she left her matrimonial house and started residing at her parental house at Devendranagar, Raipur. Both husband and wife thereafter started residing at Korba since 2009. the husband of private respondent was working in Samsung company in Korba. After few months, when the private respondent was pregnant she left the house of petitioners and went to her parent house situated at Devendra Nagar Raipur. It was thereafter private respondent along with her husband went to Korba Chhattisgarh some 2009 and no contact with petitioners. Thereafter, in the year 2013, the respondent No. 2 and her husband returned back to Raipur and started raising disputes. The petitioners were pressurized to grant them separate accommodation and accordingly, the respondent No. 2 and her husband were provided separate accommodation on the first floor of the house. Despite that, the respondent No. 2 has been causing annoyance and disturbance in the house on petty issues. The father of the petitioner No. 1 and husband of
3
petitioner No. 2 is an old infirm person suffering from paralysis and is a retired employee of a Bank. Since the old aged in-laws were continuously being harassed, a complaint was made against the respondent No. 2 on the National help line center for Senior Citizen on 21.10.2022 bearing case No. CG221021000002. Immediately thereafter, the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 0379/2022 at Police Station, Pandri, District Raipur, for the offences under Sections 354, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. According to Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners, the police, without investigating the matter has lodged the FIR and in a haste and thereafter filed the charge sheet against them on 24.04.2023. The petitioner No. 1 was arrested on 24.04.2023 and got a bail from learned Session Court Raipur some where in the month of April-May, 2023.
4. Mr. Acharya further submits that the petitioner No. 2 and her husband filed an application under Section 5 read with Section 20 of the (Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007) ( for short, the Act of 2007 ) before the Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue)-cumPresident, Maintenance Tribunal, Raipur seeking relief for the eviction of the respondent No. 2 and her husband. The Maintenance Tribunal, based on the pleadings and the evidence brought in by the parties, allowed the application of the petitioners vide order dated 13.04.2023 and directed the respondent No. 2 and her husband to vacate the premises. The said order was challenged before the learned Collector, Raipur-cum-President, Appellate Tribunal under the Act of 2007, which also came to be dismissed on 13.07.2023. The respondent No. 2 and her husband approached the learned Single Judge of this High Court in WPC No. 3938/2023 which also stood dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2023
4
against which an appeal being WA No. 63/2024, was preferred which also stood dismissed vide judgment dated 12.02.2024.
5. Mr. Acharya submits that the FIR is the outcome of the petition filed by the petitioners under the Act of 2007 by which the respondent No. 2 and her husband were compelled to vacate the premises in which they were residing. The FIR is totally false and baseless which deserves to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that when a complainant lodges the FIR, the same has to be registered and the police is required to investigate the matter which has been done in the instant case. After investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet and now it is for the learned trial Court to proceed with the matter.
7. Though no return has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Mr. N.N.Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is sufÏcient materials available on record to show that the respondent No. 2 has been mistreated and manhandled by the petitioners and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. There are series of events which show that the petitioners misbehaved and used abusive language against the respondent No. 2.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
9. From perusal of the FIR (Annexure P/1) it transpires that the the same was lodged on 28.10.2022 against petitioner No. 1 only and the allegation against the petitioner No. 1 is that he used to eve tease her, hurl abuses against her and threatened her of dire consequences. Another aspect of the matter is that a petition was filed by the petitioner
5
No. 2 under the provisions of the Act of 2007 in which order was passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal and thereafter by the Appellate Tribunal in favour of the petitioners only and the respondent No. 2 and her husband Parvez Khan were evicted from the premises in which they were residing. As soon as the petitioners lodged a complaint in the National Helpline For Senior Citizens, on 21.10.2022, the FIR was lodged on 28.10.2022. The allegations levelled in the FIR are also vague and general in nature. Earlier, the respondent No. 2 and her husband were living separately at Korba and later they returned back to Raipur and started residing in the house where the petitioners are residing.
10. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has made another complaint to the Police on 11.01.2024 (Annexure A/2) primarily against the petitioner No.1 but some allegations have also been levelled against the petitioner No. 2, on the basis of which a preliminary enquiry has been initiated and the police has recorded the statements of the petitioners herein.
11. A family dispute has been tried to be given a colour of criminal offence as because of the quarrel and torture being made by the respondent No. 2 and her husband Parvez Khan, the husband of the petitioner No. 2 lodged a complaint in the National Helpline Number after which a case was registered and the respondent No. 2 and her husband, and it appears that to counter the said case, the FIR (Annexure A/1) has been lodged in order to pressurize the petitioners.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the FIR dated 28.10.2022 bearing Crime No. 0379/2022 registered at Police Station, Pandri, Raipur,
6
District Raipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential criminal proceedings emanating thereof as well as the preliminary enquiry initiated by the police on the basis of complaint dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure A/2) made by the respondent No. 2. It is ordered accordingly.
13. As a result, this petition stands allowed .
Sd/(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE
Sd/(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2024.11.08 13:09:03 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 354, 294, 323 and 506 IPC arising from a family dispute should be quashed
Whether the preliminary enquiry on the respondent's complaint dated 11.01.2024 should be quashed
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Firoz Khan
Smt. Parveen Khan
State of Chhattisgarh
Nikhat Parveen
Ramesh Sinha
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
