Category Archives: FIR quash

Madras HC quashes #FALSE498a in Feb’16 & talks of 498a misuse! Quotes earlier SC cases on #498amisuse

A woman files a fake 498a case. During police panchayat she agrees to live separately with her husband IF a separate household is established. She also states that all her Jewellery is with her parents. Later the couple start living together and again trouble crop up. She changes her stand and files yet another fake dowry case. The second case is inquired into and in the inquiry report dated 01.04.2013 by the District Social Welfare Officer clearly states that the dispute is purely a matrimonial dispute and there is no material to infer that the accused had demanded dowry. However police file final report on many accused who move to the HC for quash.

Honble HC quashes the case and also clearly decries the misuse of 498a !! The Honble HC quotes both Sushil Kumar and Arnesh Kumar case (SC cases !! )


BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 19.02.2016  

CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14279 of 2013

1.      Kaleel Ahamed Sahib
2.      Basaria Begum
3.      Mariyam Kani
4.      Syed Mohammed            … Petitioners/A1 to A4
-vs-

1.      The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.6 of 2013)            …1st respondent/complainant

2.      Thameema                … 2nd respondent/Defacto complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.137 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioners        :
Mr.N.Syed Mohamed (4th petitioner / Party-in-Person)
Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai  (Amicus Curiae)

For R1                 :
Mr.S.Prabha, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R2                  :
Mr.Ayyanar Premkumar, For Mr.D.S.Haroon Rashee, Addl. Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

  1. This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.137 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi and quash the same as illegal.
  2. Initially, this quash petition was filed by the petitioners through their counsel M/s.Ajmal Associates and during the pendency of the quash petition, the petitioners have revoked the vakalath given to M/s.Ajmal Associates and Syed Mohammed / 4th petitioner herein appeared in person with authorization from other petitioners.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com.
  3. During the course of hearing, this Court observed that Syed Mohammed / 4th petitioner herein requires legal assistance and therefore, this Court requested Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, Advocate to appear pro bono for the petitioners and adjourned the case to today.
  4. This Court heard Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, Advocate, Mr.Syed Mohamed / Party-in-person, Mr.Ayyanar Premkumar, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State and reserved orders.
  5. It is seen that Thameema / 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) got married to Kaleel Ahamed Sahib / 1st petitioner (A1) on 10.05.2009 and their marriage ran into rough weather. Thameema lodged a complaint sometime in January, 2012 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town, alleging the acts of cruelty against her husband and in-laws. The Police called both parties for enquiry. During enquiry, the couple agreed to reunite and establish a separate household. Thameema gave a letter dated 01.02.2012 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town, wherein she has stated that she is willing to join her husband and that the jewellery, which was given to her during marriage are in the custody of her parents. She withdrew the complaint given by her. Thereafter, again some dispute arose between the couple on account of which Thameema lodged a fresh complaint on 07.07.2012 before the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town. Since the Police did not take any action, she filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9676 of 2012 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court for a direction to the Police to register an FIR on her complaint. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Sub-Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Madurai Town, registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2012 on 18.08.2012 under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband and in-laws.
  6. Subsequently, for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the FIR was transferred to the file of All Women Police Station, Sivakasi, where the case was re-registered as Crime No.6 of 2013. The Sivakasi Police referred the matter to the District Social Welfare Officer for enquiry. The enquiry report dated 01.04.2013 by the District Social Welfare Officer clearly states that the dispute is purely a matrimonial dispute and there is no material to infer that the accused had demanded dowry. However, the respondent police filed a final report in C.C.No.137 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi against all the four petitioners for offences under Sections 498(A) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
  7. Mr.A.Prasanna Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the same allegations were made by the defacto complainant in the 1st complaint that was filed before the All Women Police Station, Madurai and during enquiry, she has categorically stated that she is ready to live with her husband in a separate household. She has also stated that her jewellery are with her parents. Thereafter, when the 1st petitioner pronounced Triple Talaq before Ramanathapuram District Shariath Council in Case No.41 of 2012 on 15.09.2012, the defacto complainant has revived her previous complaint, resulting in the Police filing the impugned final report.
  8. On the contrary, Mr.Ayyanar Premkumar, learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that there are sufficient materials for the trial to proceed against the accused and this is not a fit case to quash the prosecution.
  9. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also supported the stand of the defacto complainant.
  10. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the final report and accompanying documents.
  11. From the records, it is apparent that the defacto complainant gave a complaint, in which she has stated that she is being taunted by her in-laws in the joint family. She withdrew the complaint on 01.02.2012 by accepting to live in a separate household with her husband. She has also stated that the jewels given to her are with her parents. Thereafter, she has changed her stand, perhaps because, her husband had pronounced triple talaq.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com.
  12. Be that as it may, the allegations in the final report as against parents-in-law and sister-in-law are indeed very vague. Even according to the final report, Mariyam Kani (A3) was married to one Mohammed Sindhasha and is living separately in No.170, Sakkarai Vava Street, Sivakasi, but whereas the other accused are living in No.19, Periyapillai Rowther Street, Sivakasi.
  13. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and Others [W.P.(civil) 141 of 2005] decided on 19.07.2005, has observed as follows: “……But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with obligue motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work…..”
  14. In yet another judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 3 MLJ (Crl) 353 (SC), the Supreme Court has expressed its view as under: “……..There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested….”
  15. On a careful reading of the final report and the statements, this Court is of the view that the prosecution as against Basaria Begum (A2), Mariyam Kani (A3) and Syed Mohammed (A4) is only abuse of process of law and there are materials for the prosecution to proceed against Kaleel Ahamed Sahib (A1).
  16. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi as against Basaria Begum (A2), Mariyam Kani (A3) and Syed Mohammed (A4) alone are quashed.
  17. This petition as against Kaleel Ahamed Sahib (A1) stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

 

To

  1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.
  2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.
  3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

LOVE match 2 court! DV b4 marriage! 498a 307 323 AFTR marriage. Sis in law runs 4 quash !

LOVE match to court! DV even b4 marriage, 498a 307 323 AFTR marriage & Sis in law runs 4 quash. Bombay HC 498A Quashes case on facts

Classic case of a LOVE and INTERCASTE marriage where wife files DV before marriage and the rest 498a etc AFTER marriage. Many in laws including women are roped in.

Do you have an absurd 498a on a sister in law or a mother / father in law who are NOT even present at the place / time of incidents and allegation ? use this classic quash granted by Bombay HC

In this case of an inter-caste marriage the sister in law has NOT even visited the couple after marriage ! Sis in law lives in pune while alleged incidents are supposed to have happened at Aurangabad. Sis in law’s name is NOT in the FIR or in the preliminary evidences but she is roped in as an after thought. The case on the husband itself looks like an after thought !! initially the woman says it was an accident, but later the woman says her first statement was under pressure !! and make a fresh statement and FIR is lodged and case starts !!

Bombay HC appreciates the facts, quotes the classic Chaudhry Bajan Lal’s case and quashes the case against the sister in law

Excerpts :
***********************
Initially at the hospital, the wife / complainant woman says “…..her husband took her along with their children in their own car to Dhoot hospital for treatment. As there was no facility for burnt patients, the complainant was shifted to Bobde Hospital, Beed Bypass road, Aurangabad. The complainant was treated 8 days. …5. It is alleged that during the course of the treatment at Bobde Hospital, police and government officer recorded the statement of the complainant, in which she has stated that the kerosene can was spread over and as there was no electricity in the house, while igniting the candle, suddenly there was a burst. Thus, she sustained burn injuries. She had also stated that, no one tried to burn her and she has no complaint against anyone. …..” … so initially this was JUST an accident

But later on the the wife / complainant woman changes that statement and says the first statement was MADE UNDER fear ! She was worried that husband will beat her!! So she makes a fresh statement to get an FIR lodged against husband and in laws !! “…..It is further alleged that at that time, no close relative of the complainant was there with her and her husband was threatening her to beat her and the children and therefore, the complainant stated the statement under pressure. Thereafter, it is alleged in the FIR that she   was feeling better and taking treatment in Dahiphade hospital, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. Therefore, she has lodged the complaint……..”

The sister in law petitions for a quash on the following grounds “…..6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was registered against the husband by the complainant and there was no mention of petitioner’s name, no allegation was made against her by the complainant. The complaint was lodged belatedly, which is afterthought. He submitted that the petitioner is a married sister-in-law of the complainant. He submitted that the petitioner had performed intercaste marriage and since then, she had not visited house of her parents, the complainant and her husband. The petitioner is permanently residing with her husband at Pune. The complainant even did not make any allegation against the petitioner in her complaint and also in the statement recorded in the hospital by the Magistrate….”

The sister in law also shows that though the incident is supposed to have happened on 22.12.2013, the sister in law’s name is NOT mentioned in the FIR or preliminary statements and her name is roped in by the wife’s father only on 30.01.2014 !

Bombay HC appreciates the facts, quotes the classic Chaudhry Bajan Lal’s case and quashes the case against the sister in law. The honourable HC goes to say “….13. The case in hand is covered under Categories (1) and (5)   of the said categories. The view taken by us also lends support from the view taken by the Supreme Court in cases of (1) Preeti Gupta & Anr., (supra), (2) Shalu @ Siya Lavin Keswani and others (supra), and (3) Sau. Sharda Ravindra Patil and others (supra)…..”

The Bombay HC observes that “….. It appears that there is belated attempt by the mother of the complainant namely, Sangita Suresh   Shirke to attribute role to the petitioner for the incident dated 23.12.2013. In fact, the complainant had lodged FIR and also her statement at the earliest opportunity was recorded, in which name of the petitioner is not mentioned….”

It is important to note that clauses (1) and (5) of Ch. Bajan Lal’s case are as follows :

1 Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused

So.. an absurd and inherently improbable case is used to harass half a dozen people AFTER A LOVE MARRIAGE

*****************************disclaimer*******************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*********************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*********************************************************************

Pallavi W/O Sagar Gour vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 31 July, 2015

Bench: S.S. Shinde

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.532 OF 2015.

Pallavi w/o Sagar Gour,
age 27 years Occu. Household,
r/o House No.11, Dhavle Niwas,
Dhawle Vasti, Marwanji Road,
Wakad Chinchwad, Pune.                                   … PETITIONER.

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra.

2. Supriya w/o Vishal Sudke,
age 28 years, occu. Household,
r/o C/o Ssuresh Shirke, Kasba-Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.                              … RESPONDENTS.

Mr.S.J. Rahate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.B.L. Dhas, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr.K.R. Doke, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.I.S.CHEEMA, JJ.

Reserved on : 17.07.2015.

Pronounced on : 31.07.2015.

JUDGMENT [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]:

1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer:

“(B) The chargesheet & proceedings of Sessions Case No.255/2014 pending before the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad offences U/sec.307, 498-A,323, 506 r/w 34 of the Penal Code crime No.I-13/2013 registered with police station MIDC Aurangabad initiated on the basis of the chargesheet filed against the present petitioner be quashed and set aside;”

Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, a lady namely Supriya w/o Vishal Sudke r/o Shradha colony (MHADA), HIG-13, Opp. Dhoot Hospital Mukundwadi Aurangabad lodged a complaint with P.S. MIDC CIDCO U/sec. 307, 323, 506 of I.P.Code against her husband alleging inter alia that the marriage between them was solemnized in 2008. the couple has been blessed with two children, one boy namely Harshad 5 years and a girl namely Mitali.

3. It is alleged that the complainant was treated well for few days thereafter, she was ill-treated by her husband.

Under influence of liquor her husband used to beat her and her in-laws never used to interfere. The father-in-law of the complainant expired in July, 2013, since then husband of   complainant started consuming liquor. It is alleged that the husband of complainant used to beat her on petty reasons and she never disclosed about the ill-treatment to her parents as her husband used to threaten her by saying that he will beat her and the children.

4. It is alleged that on 22.12.2013 at 11.30 pm when the complainant, her husband and their children were in the house, the children were asleep, at that time the husband of complainant asked telephone number of her father and the complainant replied that she don’t know the telephone number. On account of this, her husband abused and allegedly drove her out of the house. Thereafter, immediately again he took her inside and locked the door from inside. It is alleged that the husband of complainant then took her to backside of the house and poured kerosene from the plastic can. It is further alleged that the complainant then started running. Her husband then poured kerosene on the person of the complainant from back and threw burning match stick on her sari. She further stated that she herself removed her clothes due to which she sustained burn injuries over her hand, entire front portion, chest, stomach, back, leg. She   further stated that thereafter she jumped in the water tank.

It is alleged that her husband did not try to rescue her. The complainant herself told her husband to shift her to the hospital otherwise she will shout and gather the neighbours, thereafter, her husband took her along with their children in their own car to Dhoot hospital for treatment. As there was no facility for burnt patients, the complainant was shifted to Bobde Hospital, Beed Bypass road, Aurangabad. The complainant was treated 8 days.

5. It is alleged that during the course of the treatment at Bobde Hospital, police and government officer recorded the statement of the complainant, in which she has stated that the kerosene can was spread over and as there was no electricity in the house, while igniting the candle, suddenly there was a burst. Thus, she sustained burn injuries. She had also stated that, no one tried to burn her and she has no complaint against anyone. It is further alleged that at that time, no close relative of the complainant was there with her and her husband was threatening her to beat her and the children and therefore, the complainant stated the statement under pressure.

Thereafter, it is alleged in the FIR that she   was feeling better and taking treatment in Dahiphade hospital, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. Therefore, she has lodged the complaint.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was registered against the husband by the complainant and there was no mention of petitioner’s name, no allegation was made against her by the complainant. The complaint was lodged belatedly, which is afterthought. He submitted that the petitioner is a married sister-in-law of the complainant. He submitted that the petitioner had performed intercaste marriage and since then, she had not visited house of her parents, the complainant and her husband. The petitioner is permanently residing with her husband at Pune.

The complainant even did not make any allegation against the petitioner in her complaint and also in the statement recorded in the hospital by the Magistrate.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, statements of complainant, her mother and father were recorded on 23.12.2013 and none of them alleged anything against the petitioner. Even in the statement /FIR   dated 21.01.2014, the complainant made allegations against the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in the statement recorded on 30.01.2014 Suresh Vishwanath Shirke – father of the complainant made vague, general, omnibus and inconsistent allegations against the petitioner. Mother of the complainant namely, Sangita w/o Suresh Shirke in her statement dated 30.01.2014 made the same allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted that, brother of the complainant namely, Abhilash s/o Suresh Shirke and uncle of complainant namely, Santosh Shamrao Dhanlangde, in their statements dated 30.01.2014 made general, vague and afterthought allegations against the petitioner. <SMALL>http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com</SMALL&gt;

In support of his submissions that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at its face value and considered in its entirety, no offence is disclosed against the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others1, and also the judgment dated 17 th 1 AIR 1992 SC 604; October, 2012 delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (Cri) No.10547/2010), and the judgment dated 13th August, 2010 of the Supreme Court in case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr delivered in Criminal Appeal No.1512 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (Cri) No.4684/2009). He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 29 th January, 2015 in Criminal Application No.5501 of 2014 in case of Shalu @ Siya Lavin Keswani and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. as also the order dated 2nd July, 2015 in Criminal Application No.6993/2014 in case of Sau. Sharda Ravindra Patil and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., therefore, submitted that this petition may be allowed.

8. The learned APP appearing for the State and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the witnesses namely , father, mother, brother and uncle of the complainant have categorically made allegations against the petitioner and   endorsed her role in meeting out ill-treatment, harassment to the complainant and, therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed and, hence the petitioner is having alternate remedy of filing application for discharge. It is submitted that there is specific accusation against the present petitioner in the statements of the witnesses. They have specifically stated that, the petitioner had subjected complainant to cruelty and instigated to kill her. He submitted that the parents, brother and maternal uncle of the complainant have specifically made allegations against the petitioner. He further submitted that there is series of incidents which clearly reveal that present petitioner also subjected the respondent No.2 to cruelty on various occasion. He submitted that, even if it is assumed that section 307 IPC would not be attracted against the petitioner, but petitioner is liable to be prosecuted u/s 498A of IPC. He submitted that for the purpose of offense u/s 498A of IPC, it is not necessary that accused should be present on the spot, it can be mental state of affairs. The initial statement of the complainant as well as mother and father is totally under the   undue influence and coercion as the little children of the respondent No.2 are in custody of the petitioner’s brother and she was threatened. He submits that if the charge-sheet against the petitioner is quashed and set aside, it will badly affect the trial. Therefore, he submits that the petition may be dismissed.

9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 – complainant. We have also carefully perused the statement of the witnesses and other accompaniments of the charge-sheet. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is married sister-in-law of the complainant. Her marriage was performed in the year, 2009. The said marriage was an intercaste marriage. It is case of the petitioner that since she performed intercaste marriage against the wish of parents, she is not on visiting terms to the parents and therefore, there was no question of her presence at Aurangabad as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. It appears that the petitioner shifted to Pune and since her marriage, she is residing at Pune. Petitioner has also placed on record proof of her residence at Pune. Upon careful   perusal of the FIR registered by the complainant n 21 st January, 2014, name of the petitioner in respect of alleged offence taken place on 23.12.2013 is not included. The complainant had also given statement about the said incident at the earliest opportunity on 23.12.2013. In that statement also name of the petitioner is not mentioned. It appears that the prosecution witnesses have implicated the petitioner by making general allegations belatedly. It is true that there are general allegations in the statements of the witnesses.

However, at the earliest opportunity when the statements of the witnesses were recorded on 23.12.2013, name of the petitioner was not mentioned. It appears that the statement of Suresh Vishwanath Shirke was recorded on 30 th January, 2014 wherein general allegation has been made against the petitioner. However, there is no any specific role attributed to her or no any specific date is mentioned on which the petitioner was involved in harassment / ill-treatment of the complainant. Even, the statement of the mother of the complainant also, more or less, makes general allegation against the petitioner along with other members of the family of the complainant. It appears that there is belated attempt by the mother of the complainant namely, Sangita Suresh   Shirke to attribute role to the petitioner for the incident dated 23.12.2013. In fact, the complainant had lodged FIR and also her statement at the earliest opportunity was recorded, in which name of the petitioner is not mentioned.

10. Statement of mother of the complainant was recorded on 30th January, 2014 i.e. belatedly, after 38 days of the alleged incident dated 23.12.2013. Other witness Santosh Dhanlagade – uncle of the complainant has also made general allegations. Upon perusal of the entire material placed on record, there appear to be no any specific allegation attributing specific overt-act to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is residing at Pune since the year, 2009, she has having a child of three and half years, studying in English School at Pune, as contended by the petitioner in her rejoinder to affidavit-in-reply. It is also relevant to mention that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been initiated by the wife in the year, 2005 and neither name of the petitioner is mentioned nor any specific role is attributed to her in the said proceedings. That proceeding was even before the marriage of the   petitioner.

11. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, further proceedings of Sessions Case No.255/2014 pending before the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad for offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Penal Code arising out of Crime No.I-13/2013 registered with police station MIDC Aurangabad as against the petitioner, will be an exercise in futility and abuse of process of Court. The petitioner has placed on record sufficient material, which clearly indicates that she is residing at Pune from the year, 2009.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of “State of Haryana V/s Bhajanlal” {AIR 1992 SC 604} held that, in following categories the Court would be able to quash the F.I.R. :

1 Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying   the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code, except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the applicant;

4. Where the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act, (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provisions in the Code of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

13. The case in hand is covered under Categories (1) and (5)   of the said categories. The view taken by us also lends support from the view taken by the Supreme Court in cases of (1) Preeti Gupta & Anr., (supra), (2) Shalu @ Siya Lavin Keswani and others (supra), and (3) Sau. Sharda Ravindra Patil and others (supra).

14. In the light of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs, the charge-sheet and the proceedings of Sessions Case No.255/2014 pending before the Court of Sessions, Aurangabad for offences punishable under sections 307, 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Penal Code arising out of Crime No.I-13/2013 registered with police station MIDC Aurangabad stand quashed and set aside as against the petitioner.

We make it clear that the observations herein above are for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the trial Court shall not get influenced by the said observations while conducting the trial against other co-accused. Rule made absolute in above terms. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

[A.I.S.CHEEMA, J.]                 [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

kadam*

File 498a, 506 collect money & suddenly there is a VOLUNTARY compromise. “Voluntary” I say!. P&H HC

* modus operandi of VOLUNTARY compromises explained
* filing criminal cases on husband and in laws, threatening them with arrest etc NOT elaborated !!

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-13878 of 2015
Date of Decision: August 21, 2015

*************************

Naveen ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another …..Respondents

*************************

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

*************************
Present: Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vishal Kashyap, AAG, Haryana.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
*************************

Rajan Gupta, J (Oral)

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of F.I.R No. 101 dated 5.4.2013 registered under Sections 498-A/506/323 IPC at Police Station, Bhawanikhera, District Bhiwani and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of this petition a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. Relying upon the judgment reported as Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, learned counsel submit that in view of compromise, the impugned F.I.R deserves to be quashed.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the ratio of judgment in Kulwinder Singh’s case supra and submit that in case a compromise is arrived at between the parties the State shall not stand in the way of quashing of F.I.R.

Heard It appears that on 30.4.2015, a direction was issued by this court to record the statements of the parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise. A report has been received from the trial court. Operative part thereof reads thus:-

“Consequently, both the parties i.e accused as well as the
complainant have appeared and accordingly, their separate statements
along with a joint statement on oath have been recorded, wherein,
complainant and accused namely, Sunita and Naveen have submitted that
a compromise has been effected with the accused. Complainant Sunita
has stated that she has received all alimony regarding her
maintenance and they both have filed a mutual divorce petition and
now she does not want any action against the accused and she has no
objection in cancellation of FIR Similarly the statement of mother of
complainant Ishwanti has also been recorded. Statement of accused
Naveen has also been recorded wherein he has stated that a compromise
has been effected and he has paid all alimony regarding maintenance
allowance of complainant Sunita and the compromise has been effected
out of their free will, consent and without any coercion or undue
influence. The aforesaid compromise effected between the parties is
for the welfare of both the parties and they have compromised the
matter with their own sweet will and without any pressure or
influence and thus they have no objection if the FIR is quashed.

In view of aforesaid circumstances a compromise has been voluntarily
effected between the parties to my belief and the aforesaid
compromise is genuine and outcome of free consent of both the parties.”

The compromise is in the interest of the parties and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh’s case supra. http://evinayak.tumblr.com https://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The F.I.R in question and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Rajan Gupta) Judge

August 21, 2015

BB

Vexatious &malicious FIR on inlaws, to wreak vengeance. Disowned love mariage DIL files false 498a 406 on family

  • One of the sons marry a girl outside the caste without consent of the family “…….. inter-caste love marriage of Manoj Kumar Saini, younger brother of petitioner Sanjiv Kumar, was solemnized with complainant-Anju Saini, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”) on 06.07.2002 in Arya Samaj Mandir at Hisar, without the consent of family members…”
  • The Dad is furious about this intercaste marriage and “… When the father of Manoj Kumar Saini came to know that he is going to perform love marriage with the complainant, then he disowned him(Manoj Kumar) and got published the following public …”
  • The Dad is so shocked that “... he actually suffered serious ailments and ultimately, died due to the attitude of his son Manoj Kumar Saini…”
  • So the marriage completely cuts off this son, and they start living separately from the family !!
  • Living away from the family does NOT save the parents from false cases !! Six years later, the wife (yea..the same love marriage wife) files a 409a, 406 case “….six years after solemnization of marriage, the complainant lodged a complaint against petitioner- Sanjiv Kumar, brother-in-law(Jeth), his wife Suman, sister-in-law(Jethani) and Rani, mother-in-law, inter alia, with the allegations that they started pressurizing her, to bring more money from her parents. They did not give any share out of property and demanded Rs.2-3 lacs…”
  • And the Honourable court concludes “….if the crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as discussed hereinabove, is put together and is perused, then, to my mind, no pointed offences are made out against the petitioner and the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously filed the FIR(Annexure P-5) against him, in order to wreak vengeance. In case, the complainant is permitted to prosecute her brother-in-law(Jeth), who is residing separately, then it will inculcate and perpetuate great injustice to him. In this manner, the complainant appears to have falsely involved the petitioner in the present case…”

Such is the fate of Marriages in India

**********************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-28371 of 2008
Date of Decision:21.05.2012
Sanjiv Kumar                                                          ……Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another                                       …..Respondents

CORAM:         HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

Present:
Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Kartar Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1-State.
Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
********************

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, inter-caste love marriage of Manoj Kumar Saini, younger brother of petitioner Sanjiv Kumar, was solemnized with complainant-Anju Saini, respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”) on 06.07.2002 in Arya Samaj Mandir at Hisar, without the consent of family members. When the father of Manoj Kumar Saini came to know that he is going to perform love marriage with the complainant, then he disowned him(Manoj Kumar) and got published the following public notice on 11.06.2002:-

       “I declare that my son, Manoj Saini, who is out of my control
       has no relation with me. I have disowned him from my movable and
       immovable property. Anyone having any type of dealing with him
       shall himself be responsible.”

2. As soon as, he came to know about the inter-caste marriage, in the meantime, he actually suffered serious ailments and ultimately, died due to the attitude of his son Manoj Kumar Saini. On 20.04.2008, i.e. six years after solemnization of marriage, the complainant lodged a complaint against petitioner- Sanjiv Kumar, brother-in-law(Jeth), his wife Suman, sister-in-law(Jethani) and Rani, mother-in-law, inter alia, with the allegations that they started pressurizing her, to bring more money from her parents. They did not give any share out of property and demanded Rs.2-3 lacs. According to the complainant that, she left her matrimonial home due to fear and started residing with her younger sister. She apprehended danger to her life, as she was unable to fulfill their demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, by way of FIR No.258 dated 20.04.2008 (Annexure P-5), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506/34 IPC, by the police of Police Station City, Rohtak.

3. Although, during the course of investigation, Rani(mother-in-law) and Suman, sister-in-law(Jethani) of the complainant, were found innocent, however, the police submitted the challan/final police report in the court against the petitioner in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C., to face the trial for the commission of pointed offences.

4. The petitioner-accused did not feel satisfied with the initiation of the criminal prosecution against him and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-5), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The case set-up by the petitioner, in brief, insofar as relevant, is that the complainant performed inter-caste love marriage with Manoj Kumar Saini against the wishes of his father, who had disowned him. They were residing separately. Ultimately, his father died due to shock. After his death, the complainant and her husband started misbehaving with his family members. Manoj Kumar Saini tried to forcibly enter into the house with the help of miscreants, then the mother of the petitioner submitted an application to the police as well as to the higher authorities. It was alleged that the petitioner, who was a practicing Lawyer, had shifted from Rohtak and practiced from September 2001 to January 2004 at Chandigarh. After the death of his father, he has again shifted to Rohtak. His younger brother Manoj Kumar Saini and his wife(complainant) started harassing his family members. They wanted to forcibly occupy the house and illegally demanded share in the property. When the mother of the petitioner refused to give him the property, then Manoj Kumar Saini with the connivance of his wife(complainant), managed to lodge the FIR(Annexure P-5) against the petitioner, in order to take the revenge. It has been specifically pleaded in para 15 of the petition as under:-

“That from facts and circumstances narrated above, it is clear that registration of FIR against the petitioner is clear cut misuse of the provisions of Section 498-A/406 IPC. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the complainant and Manoj Kumar had solemnized the love marriage without consent of the family of the petitioner. The petitioner actually being an elder brother of Manoj Kumar has been involved in the present case. Otherwise, question of harassment and raising a demand of dowry does not arise. The fact of the matter is that not only the petitioner but the entire family of the petitioner is being harassed by Manoj Kumar and the complainant with active connivance. When both the husband and wife failed to achieve the target to get share in the property, now they in concert with each other i.e. husband and wife, got registered the FIR and complaint under provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 so that the petitioner, his mother and sister get involved in the litigation and, ultimately, would agree to share the property with them. Thus, on this score alone, the FIR registered against the petitioner is totally baseless and the allegations levelled in the FIR cannot be taken against the petitioner at all.”

6. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the petitioner claimed that he has been falsely implicated, in order to take revenge and wreak vengeance by the complainant with the connivance of his younger brother Manoj Kumar Saini, with the intention to illegally get share in the property. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned FIR(Annexure P-5), in the manner depicted hereinabove.

7. The respondents refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed their respective replies, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that, that the respondents have reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned FIR(Annexure P-5). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that they have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how, I am seized of the matter.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

9. As is evident from the record that, the inter-caste love marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Manoj Kumar Saini on 06.07.2002, whereas the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner, his wife and mother on 20.04.2008(i.e., after a period of six years). During the course of investigation, the story of the complainant was disbelieved qua wife and mother of the petitioner and they were found innocent. Only petitioner, brother-in-law(Jeth) of the complainant was charged for the commission of the indicated offences.

10. Not only that, copy of the Ration Card(Annexure P-1) would go to show that complainant-Anju Saini was residing separately with her husband Manoj Kumar Saini and daugher Manvi. Manoj Kumar Saini was disowned by his father. Manoj Kumar and the complainant broke open the lock of the house and his mother Rani reported the matter to the police, to take action against them, vide complaint dated 15.07.2006(Annexure P-2). She moved another complaint dated 16.08.2007(Annexure P-3) to the SHO, Police Station City, Rohtak. The incident of trespassing by the complainant and her husband was published by virtue of publication(Annexure P-4).

11. This is not the end of the matter. Again, the complainant has also filed another separate complaint(Annexure P-6) against the accused under Sections 12, 17 to 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 498-A IPC, to which, the petitioner filed the reply(Annexure P-7). The proceedings(Annexure P-8) were also initiated under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. between the parties. Manoj Kumar Saini, husband of the complainant, lodged another FIR No.680 dated 18.09.2009(Annexure P-9) under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC against the petitioner, his wife and two other unknown persons. In other words, it stands proved on record that the complainant and her husband were residing separately from the family of the petitioner, which falsifies the claim of the complainant contained in the FIR(Annexure P-5), wherein she stated that her mother-in-law started pressurizing her for bringing money. They tried to illegally trespass the house of his mother Rani and she reported the matter to the police. There is a long line of complaints between the parties.

12. The only allegations alleged against the petitioner, his wife and mother, were that they started pressurizing her for bringing more money. The wife and mother of the petitioner were found innocent by the police during the course of investigation. That means, the story of the complainant relatable to them has already been disbelieved even by the investigating agency. Once it is proved that the complainant and her husband were residing separately, whereas the petitioner was residing separately, in that eventuality, how, when, where, in what manner and in whose presence, the dowry articles were entrusted to him at the time of inter- caste love marriage or the petitioner has treated her(complainant) with cruelty and in what manner, he is remotely connected with the commission of the indicated offences, remains an unfolded mystery. The complainant with the connivance of her husband appears to have maliciously and vexatiously involved the petitioner in this case, in order to wreak vengeance and to take the revenge, after the expiry of period of six years from solemnization of their marriage.

13. Moreover, as indicated here-in-above, very very vague allegations are assigned to the petitioner in the FIR. The only allegations assigned to the present petitioner are that, he asked that they cannot bear their expenses and will not give anything out of their property, bring Rs.2-3 lacs from your mother, otherwise they will burn her alive. Thereafter due to fear, she left her matrimonial home. The allegations are as vague as anything and no specific role or overt-act is attributed to the petitioner. Above all, it is highly impossible to believe that the petitioner(who is brother-in-law(Jeth) of the complainant) would treat her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry.

14. It is now well settled principle of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the petitioner to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to him and he misappropriated the same. The in-laws and other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusation is made, the overt acts attributed to such persons, other than husband, are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offences relating to the demand of dowry, which are totally lacking in the present case. As the Bench mark, all the essential ingredients to constitute the offences and element of the complicity of petitioner, are totally missing, therefore, to me, no criminal prosecution can legally be permitted to continue against him, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases Ramesh and others Versus State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 68, Sushil Kumar Sharma Versus Union of India and others, 2005(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 745 and Kans Raj Versus State of Punjab and others, 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 695.

15. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another 2010(7) SCC 667. Having interpreted the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, it was ruled as under (paras 30 to 36) :-

“30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these
complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the
moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come
across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona
fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are
also a matter of serious concern.

31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of
family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that
exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected
in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed
either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must
maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint
under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make
serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable
resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their
duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social
fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The
members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should
not lead to multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the
complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.

33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the
truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations
is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of
criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The
courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had
been living in different cities and never visited or rarely
visited the place where the complainant resided would have an
entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint
are required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted
criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few
days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement
altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and
painful.

34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe
that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by
the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also
reflected in a very large number of cases.

35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be
able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy.
Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only
flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest
affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is
high time that the legislature must take into consideration the
pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing
law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into
consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic
realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the
relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a
copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law
Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the
Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in
the larger interest of the society.

36. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered
in the background of legal principles set out in preceding
paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to
undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of
justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against
the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High
Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.”

16. Again, this Court has also considered this aspect of the matter in cases Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 332; Labh Singh and others v. State of Haryana 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 296; Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 565; Mohinder Kaur & Others v. State of Punjab & Another 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal) 597, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 686 and the judgment dated 17.1.2012 rendered in case Ritu Khurana and another v. Brij Lal Chopra CRM No.M-8227 of 2010; wherein it was held that “the allegations against the relatives of the husband were vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband, things have now taken a reverse trend and the women are abusing beneficial provisions of Section 498-A IPC.”

17. In this manner, the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant and her husband in this case, has considerable force and the contrary contentions on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant-respondent pale into insignificance, “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.

18. Therefore, if the crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, as discussed hereinabove, is put together and is perused, then, to my mind, no pointed offences are made out against the petitioner and the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously filed the FIR(Annexure P-5) against him, in order to wreak vengeance. In case, the complainant is permitted to prosecute her brother-in-law(Jeth), who is residing separately, then it will inculcate and perpetuate great injustice to him. In this manner, the complainant appears to have falsely involved the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, to me, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

19. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

20. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR(Annexure P-5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. The petitioner is accordingly, discharged from the indicated criminal case registered against him.

May 21, 2012                                         (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)

seema                                                       JUDGE

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Reckless Malafide FIR falsely implicating inlaws vexatiously& maliciously to blackmail &grab property

Classic case on FIR quash

Ablaa wife files FIR on In laws including brother – in law (Devar), but NO FIR on her own HUSBAND. She hides facts. The honourable High court concludes that “...if the crux of the allegations leveled against the petitioners as discussed herein-above, is clubbed together and is perused, then, to my mind, the conclusion is irresistible that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners vexatiously and maliciously, to put pressure and to blackmail them, to grab the property, in order to wreak vengeance and the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide against them. Such reckless/malafide FIR deserves to be quashed, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others…”

The Hnourable court also states “…. As strange as it may appear, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the wives of involving and roping in all the relations of her in-laws in the matter of demand of dowry have been tremendously increasing day by day, which is adversely affecting social fabric of the society and leaving the Courts in lurch to decide such criminal prosecution. This tendency needs to be curbed and if not discouraged, it is likely to affect and weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits in future in this relevant direction….”

**********************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-18643 of 2008

Date of Decision:- 21.2.2012

Smt.Sunita Goyal & Ors.                                           …Petitioners

                                   Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr.                                            …Respondents

CORAM:       HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

Present:-        Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Palwinder Singh, Senior DAG Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Petitioners Smt.Sunita Goyal, Vijay Goyal, unfortunate parents-in- law and Abhishek Goyal, brother-in-law (Devar) of complainant Soni Goyal, wife of Mahavir Goyal respondent No.2 (for brevity “the complainant”), have directed the instant petition for quashing the impugned FIR, bearing No.246 dated 15.9.2007 (Annexure P5), registered against them, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 506 and 120- B IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana.

2. Concisely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present petition and emanating from the record, are that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Mahavir Goyal (husband non-accused) in the month of September, 2002, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sangrur. The father of the complainant was stated to have given a Maruti Zen Car, jewellery, weighing 80 Tolas, cash and dowry beyond his capacity at the time of her marriage, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the (given) dowry articles. They started harassing, maltreating her and demanded more dowry articles. It was claimed that although the cash amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given, but her in-laws kept on harassing her. She and her husband also apprehend danger to their lives at the hands of the petitioners. On 30.8.2007 at 8 A.M., they were stated to have given severe and merciless beatings to the complainant and her husband Mahavir Goyal. The matter was reported to the police, where DDR No.12 dated 31.8.2007 was entered, but no action was taken by the police against them.

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that the petitioners have harassed, treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry and gave severe beatings to her as well as to her husband on 30.8.2007. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, by virtue of FIR (Annexure P5) in the manner indicated hereinabove.

4. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution against them and preferred the instant petition, for quashing the FIR (Annexure P5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC inter-alia on the grounds (i) that the impugned FIR (Annexure P5) has been registered ostensibly on the complaint of Soni Goyal in furtherance to the oblique motive of aforesaid Mahavir Goyal, Soni Goyal and Chuhar Lal Garg by misusing the provisions of Sections 406 and 498-A of I.P.C. The impugned FIR was got registered as a counter-blast and in retaliation to the aforesaid complaint dated 30.08.2007 (Annexure P1) lodged by petitioner no.2 with P.S. Division No.5, Ludhiana under Section 384 read with section 120-B of I.P.C. against Mahavir Goyal, Soni Goyal and Chuhar Lal Goyal and also as a counter-blast to the disassociation and de-linking of Mahavir Goyal by petitioner no.2 from their property and the filing of the civil suit (Annexure P4) by petitioner no.1 against Mahavir Goyal and Soni Goyal; (ii) the criminal case was lodged by the complainant with the sole intention to pressurize and blackmail them to transfer their property in the name of her husband Mahavir Goyal; (iii) the allegations in the FIR are absolutely concocted, false, frivolous and evince the element of malafide, after thought and maliciously & vexatiously registered against the petitioners in order to wreak vengeance and the incident of 30.8.2007 and story of payment of Rs.2,50,000/- were concocted by the complainant party; (iv) the complainant has concealed the fact that the Zen car has already been transferred in the name of Soni Goyal (complainant) on 22.4.2008, as per the transfer report/documents (Annexure P9 colly); (v) the dowry articles given at the time of marriage have already been given to the complainant, vide letter (Annexure P10). She did not make any grievance against the petitioners during five years after her marriage. As soon as, petitioner No.2 refused to part and disowned the husband of the complainant from his property, then she filed the false criminal case against them in order to take the revenge and no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioners. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the criminal prosecution against them, as depicted hereinbefore.

5. The complainant-respondent No.2 did not file any reply to deny the specific personal allegations contained in the petition. However, the DSP Crime filed the reply on behalf of State of Punjab (respondent No.1), taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioners. According to the prosecution that as per the inquiry report (Annexure R1/T) and during the course of investigation, both the parties were called and the complainant’s father-in-law agreed to give the share of Rs.25 lacs from his property to Mahavir Goyal, husband of the complainant, out of which, Rs.10 lacs were already taken by him (husband) and the remaining amount was to be paid subsequently. Consequently, the complainant and her husband agreed to shift to residential HIG Flat No.11-FF, opposite Khalsa College, Ludhiana, as per report (Annexure P13). Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that the State of Punjab has reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned FIR (Annexure P5). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that it has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

7. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of learned counsel that since there are direct allegations of cruelty, maltreatment and harassment to the complainant by the petitioners, so, no ground for quashing the criminal prosecution against them is made out, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.M.Sharan 2008(4) S.C.C. 471, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein a criminal case was registered against the then Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority and other senior officials for entering into conspiracy with Dharmbir Khattar and others to give undue favour to M/s DLF Universal Limited, New Delhi in the matter of allowing 300 Floor Area Ratio (FRA) in respect of one of the projects of DLF Universal by charging rates much below the prevailing rates and obtained or agreed to obtain illegal gratification from M/s DLF as quid pro quo. The total bribe amount was 1.10 crores. During the course of investigation and subsequent search conducted at the residence of son of one of the accused A.M.Sharan, who was at that time, Commissioner (Land Disposal, DDA), certain papers/documents relating to assets acquired/expenses incurred by him and his family members besides the cash amount of Rs.36 lacs were recovered and seized by the CBI. The CBI collected sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence constituting the grave offences. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that “where there are direct allegations and evidence to support the criminal offence, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR/charge sheet while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC.”

8. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the complainant in the present controversy, particularly when the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Dhariwal Tobaco Products Limited and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2009(2) SCC 370; M/s Pepsi Foods Limited v. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998(5) SCC 749; Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H.Chanchani 1998(7) SCC 698 and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava (2006)7 SCC 188 has ruled that “whenever the High Court comes to the conclusion that allowing the criminal prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of court and that, the ends of justice require that the proceedings should be quashed, it would not hesitate to do so, in exercise of inherent powers irrespective of other factors.”

9. Such thus being the legal position and material on record, now the short and significant question, though important that, arises for determination in this petition is, as to whether the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners deserves to be quashed or not under the present set of circumstances?

10. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative and the criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to continue in this respect.

11. As is evident from the record, that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with Mahavir Goyal (husband non-accused) in the month of September, 2002, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Sangrur. The father of the complainant was stated to have given a Maruti Zen Car, jewellery,weighing 80 Tolas, cash and dowry beyond his capacity at the time of her marriage, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the (given) dowry articles. They started harassing, maltreating her and demanded more dowry articles. Although the cash amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was given, but her in-laws kept on harassing her. She is working as a teacher in National College, Dakhan. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are her parents-in-law, whereas petitioner No.3 is her brother-in-law (Devar). She has not intentionally arrayed her husband Mahavir Goyal in a dowry related case in the array of the accused. According to the petitioners that on 30.8.2007, Mahavir Goyal and his wife (complainant) created nuisance in the house, broke the crockery & centre table and threatened the petitioners that in case the half share of the property and the money were not given to them, they would falsely implicate them in some false criminal case. Petitioner No.2 objected to it, then his son Mahavir Goyal, husband of the complainant, slapped him (his father petitioner No.2). The matter was reported to the police by petitioner No.2, through the medium of complaint of same date (Annexure P1). So much so, he disowned his son Mahavir Goyal from his whole movable and immovable properties and published the notice dated 1.9.2007 (Annexure P2) in Hindustan Times, Chandigarh in this connection. At the same time, in order to avoid the possibility of false implication, Sunita Goyal (petitioner No.1) wrote a UPC letter dated 3.9.2007 (Annexure P3 colly), asking her daughter-in-law (complainant) to take all the dowry articles and her other belongings. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

12. Not only that, petitioner No.1 filed a civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the complainant and her husband Mahavir Goyal from interfering in the peaceful possession of their residential house, by way of plaint (Annexure P4 colly). Admittedly, in civil suit, bearing No.206 dated 13.9.2007 filed by petitioner No.1, counsel for the complainant and her husband (defendants therein) suffered a separate statement that they shall not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property and they have no objection in case her (petitioner No.1) suit is decreed to that extent. In this manner, on the basis of statements of the parties, the suit of petitioner No.1 was decreed and the complainant and her husband were restrained from interfering in her possession over the suit property, vide order dated 28.7.2010 (copy taken on record as Annexure P14).

13. It is not a matter of dispute that neither the complainant nor her husband made any complaint, raising any accusing finger towards the petitioners at any point of time before lodging the FIR (Annexure P5) nor made any such averment/statement during the course of pendency of the civil suit between them. Therefore, the arguments of learned counsel that the petitioners have been falsely implicated to pressurize and blackmail them to transfer the property and the complainant has lodged the false criminal case against them (intentionally excluding her husband in dowry related matter) vexatiously and maliciously in order to wreak vengeance, have considerable force.

14. The matter did not rest there. Even as per the FIR (Annexure P5), the father of the complainant gave a Maruti Zen Car and gold jewellery, weighing 80 Tolas besides cash. It was also alleged that the petitioners demanded more dowry articles and her father gave Rs.2,50,000/- in cash to them. That means, very very vague allegations of demand of dowry and payment of indicated amount are assigned to the petitioners. Above-all, the mere fact that the complainant did not name her husband as accused that the dowry articles were entrusted to him at the time of marriage or he has also demanded the more dowry articles, is indicative of the fact that she colluded with her husband and lodged a false complaint, on the basis of which, the FIR (Annexure P5) was registered against the petitioners without any material/evidence muchless cogent in this behalf.

15. Moreover, the indicated Zen car has already been transferred in the name of complainant, by means of transfer of ownership report/documents (Annexure P9 colly). The petitioners have specifically mentioned in their petition that whatever dowry articles were given at the time of marriage of complainant, have already been given to her, vide Annexure P10 (colly). That is the only reason that the complainant intentionally did not file any reply to controvert all these vital personal aspects of the matter contained in the main petition, for the reasons best known to her. In this manner, no overt act or specific role, except one minor incident of 30.8.2007, which appear to have been concocted after the complaint (Annexure P1) of petitioner No.2 and notice (Annexure P2), are attributed to the petitioners. It is very highly impossible to believe that the petitioners would treat the complainant with cruelty or demand the dowry articles from her in the absence of her husband. She appears to have intentionally colluded with her husband in order to grab the property in this regard as discussed hereinabove.

16. It is now well settled proposition of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the petitioners to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to them and they have misappropriated the same or they further demanded any dowry articles and evidence in support thereof. All other relatives of the husband cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry, especially when in this case, the husband of the complainant is not an accused. In cases, where such accusation is made, the overt acts attributed to persons, other than husband, are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offences related to demand of dowry. As all the essential ingredients to constitute the offences and complicity of petitioners are totally lacking, therefore, to me, no criminal prosecution can legally be permitted to continue against them.

17. As strange as it may appear, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the wives of involving and roping in all the relations of her in-laws in the matter of demand of dowry have been tremendously increasing day by day, which is adversely affecting social fabric of the society and leaving the Courts in lurch to decide such criminal prosecution. This tendency needs to be curbed and if not discouraged, it is likely to affect and weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits in future in this relevant direction.

18. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in cases Harjinder Kaur and others v. State of Punjab 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 332; Labh Singh and others v. State of Haryana 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 296; Rakesh Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 565; Mohinder Kaur & Others v. State of Punjab & Another 2010 (2) RCR(Criminal) 597, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 686 and the judgment dated 17.1.2012 rendered in case Ritu Khurana and another v. Brij Lal Chopra CRM No.M-8227 of 2010; wherein it was held that “the allegations against the relatives of the husband were vague and there is growing tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated allegations roping in each and every relation of the husband, things have now taken a reverse trend and the women are abusing beneficial provisions of section 498-A IPC.”

19. Sequelly, if the crux of the allegations levelled against the petitioners as discussed hereinabove, is clubbed together and is perused, then, to my mind, the conclusion is irresistible that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners vexatiously and maliciously, to put pressure and to blackmail them, to grab the property, in order to wreak vengeance and the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide against them. Such reckless/malafide FIR deserves to be quashed, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. Such malafide prosecution if allowed to continue, it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners and is nothing else, but sheer and deep misuse/abuse of process of criminal law in this relevant connection, which is not legally permissible. Therefore, the contrary submissions of learned counsel for complainant “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances, as the indicated Bench mark and the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” are applicable to the facts of this case and are the complete answer to the problem in hand. Thus, seen from any angle, to my mind, no offences whatsoever are made out against the petitioners, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

20. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.

21. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P5) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and the petitioners are discharged from the indicated criminal case registered against them.

(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge

21.2.2012

AS