Tag Archives: madhya pradesh

IPC 498a Dowry case against in-laws is an ABUSE of process of law, hence quashed ! MP HC

Angry wife files 498a against husband and 4 in laws including brother in law , sister in law etc. Hon MP High Court finds the case against in laws an ABUSE of process of law and quashes the same .

Madhya Pradesh HC Extends Direction For Functioning Of Court Amid ...

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ravikant vs Smt. Radhika Kuderiya on 20 May, 2020

Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
S.B : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

M.CR.C. NO.10332/2019

Ravikant and others.

Vs.

Smt. Radhika Kuderiya & another.


PRESENT :


Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Gulab Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2-State.

ORDER

(20.5.2020)

Accused/petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short ”the Code”) against the order dated 1.12.2018, passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur (MP), in Criminal Revision No.01/2018, whereby learned Judge affirmed the order dated 18.12.2017, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badamalahra, District Chhatarpur (MP), in Criminal Case No.523/2017, in which learned JMFC took cognizance against the accused/petitioners under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short).

2. Briefly stated facts of the case, before the trial Court, are that the marriage of complainant/respondent No.1 was solemnized with accused/petitioner No.1 on 26.4.2014. Accused/petitioner No.2 is father-in-law and accused/petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law, accused/ petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law and accused/ petitioner No.5 is brother-in-law of complainant/ respondent No.1. At the time of marriage, accused/petitioners demanded Rs.5 lacs and one Bollero Jeep as dowry. The parents of complainant/respondent No.1 gave Rs.5 lacs and Bollero Jeep as well as other articles of gold and valuable property to the accused/petitioners at the time of marriage. After the marriage, complainant/respondent No.1 went with accused/petitioners at matrimonial home peacefully. Thereafter, accused/petitioners snatched ornaments from her and they tortured and humiliated her. They used to tell her that they want a beautiful wife or daughter-in-law. Complainant/respondent No.1 became pregnant. Accused/ petitioners did not provide proper medical treatment, therefore, she underwent abortion. After some time, accused/ petitioners again pressurised her for pregnancy, but they told her that accused/petitioner No.4 is issueless, so complainant/respondent No.1 delivered a child. Complainant/respondent No.1 was very weak at that time, but she was pressurised for pregnancy by accused/ petitioners. She again became pregnant, but accused/ petitioners did not provide proper medical treatment to her. Thereafter, her father gave her him Rs.1 lakh so that accused/ petitioners may provide proper medical treatment. Thereafter, she delivered a male child on 13.6.2016. Thereafter, accused/ petitioners pressurised to give her child to her sister-in-law, accused/petitioner No.4, but complainant/respondent No.1 refused to accept this proposal, then accused/petitioners humiliated and tortured her. Thereafter, complainant/respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home and she is residing at her father’s home since 1.6.2017, but accused/petitioners went to snatch her child. Accused/petitioner N.1 initiated a proceeding at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur. She appeared before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur, but accused/petitioners did not sign the proceeding and proceeding was dismissed. Complainant/respondent No.1 lodged a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, on 29.8.2017 and 25.9.2017, but they did not initiate any proceeding against the accused/petitioners. Thereafter, she filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badamalahra, District Chhatarpur. Learned JMFC enquired into the matter and took the statements of complainant/respondent No.1 and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code and took cognizance under Section 498-A of IPC against the accused/petitioners. Accused/petitioners filed a Criminal Revision against this order before I Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, learned I ASJ Bijawar, dismissed the said revision, then they filed this Misc. Criminal Case.

3: Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits that accused/petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused/petitioners No.2 to 5 are residing separately from accused/petitioner No.1 and they have no nexus with day-to-day family affairs of accused/petitioner No.1. Learned Court below without appreciating the above fact took cognizance against the accused/petitioners No. 2 to 5. There is general allegation against the accused/ petitioners, so no case is made out against the accused/ petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC. Complainant/ respondent No.1 committed cruelty with accused/petitioner No.1 and other accused/petitioners. Complainant/respondent No.1 did not want to reside with accused/petitioner No.1 without any reasonable cause. Complainant/respondent No.1 refused to live with accused/ petitioner No.1 on 30.6.2017. Thereafter, she had gone to her parents house. Thereafter, on 7.3.2018, accused/ petitioners filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Bijawar. Apart from this, accused/petitioner No.1 initiated a proceeding before the Incharge Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur, on 10.7.2017. Complainant/respondent No.1 appeared before the said Addl. Sessions Judge Bijawar and Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, but she refused to reside with accused/ petitioner No.1 and thereafter submitted a false complaint before JMFC Badamalahra. So, it is evident that complainant/respondent No.1 did not want to reside with accused/petitioner No.1 without any reasonable cause and she falsely initiated a criminal proceeding against the accused/ petitioner No.1. Accused/ petitioner No.1 is deprived of love and affection towards his son. He is ready to keep complainant/respondent No.1 with him, so this proceeding is misuse of process of law. Therefore, learned counsel for accused/petitioners prays for setting aside the order of Courts below and quashing the entire proceeding under Complaint Case No.423/2017, pending in the Court of JMFC Badamalahra, under Section 498-A of IPC.

4: Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2-State submit that there is prima-facie material which is available on record, therefore, this is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5: Heard both the parties and perused the record.

6: This is a case of matrimonial dispute, therefore, it has to be seen as to how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.

7: It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley AIR 2011 SC 1090 that controverted documents or material of unimpeachable or sterling character may be considered while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also clear that this is a case of matrimonial dispute.

8: The Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 4019 has held as under:- “This Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupak Gupta and ors. (2015) 3 SCC 424, 426: (AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 684) held as follows: “At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not.”

9: The Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 has held as under:- “In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of respondent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implicationssuch relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.”

10 : The Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & anothers Vs. State of Jharkhand & another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 has held as under:- “28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,`cruelty’ means:- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 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.

11 : The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014(8) SCC 273 has held as under:- “4. 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 IPC 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. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498-A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal. 5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the lawmakers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.P.C. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive.”

12 : The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has held as under:- “20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: “

12.There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.”

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the Courts would not encourage such disputes.”

13 : The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as held as under:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reporduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report 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 a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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 accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-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 FIR 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 provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.

14 : In the light of aforesaid legal position. I would proceed to decide this petition.

15 : Accused/petitioners produced the copy of complaint which has been submitted by him before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur, on 10.7.2017. He alleged in this complaint that complainant/respondent No.1 is living separately without any reasonable cause and also he suspected about her character, thereafter proceeding was registered. Complainant/respondent No.1 appeared before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur. She deposed before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur, that accused/petitioner No.1 has relation with another girl. Accused/petitioner No.1 committed cruelty with her. Accused/petitioners did not provide proper medical treatment at the time of her pregnancy and accused/ petitioner No.3 also committed cruelty with her, so she left her matrimonial home. Her father provided medical treatment. Thereafter, her brother-in-law came at her parental house and she had come with him. Then she lived with accused/petitioner No.1. All other family members had gone to Village. Thereafter, accused/petitioner No.1 committed cruelty with her. Accused/petitioner No.1 did not maintain her properly. She wanted that her mother-in- law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law may appear before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. They should take responsibility that complainant/respondent No.1 would be safe in matrimonial home. Thereafter, learned Member of Parivar Paramarsh Kendra found that both the parties are not living with each other, so they may solve the matter through the Court. These documents are uncontroverted documents, so these documents can be considered in this proceedings.

16 : It is evident that complainant/respondent No.1 alleged general allegation about demand of dowry, cruelty and humiliation against all accused/petitioners. Accused/ petitioner No.1 is the husband of complainant/respondent No.1. Complainant/respondent No.1 alleged the act of cruelty against accused/petitioner No.1. She alleged the act of cruelty against the accused/petitioner No.1 before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra Chhatarpur, so act of cruelty will be investigated during the trial. Although, learned counsel for accused/petitioners submits that complainant/ respondent No.1 is residing separately without any reasonable cause, complainant/respondent No.1 has deprived the accused/petitioner No.1 of love and affection of a child. Accused/petitioner No.1 is ready to keep complainant/respondent No.1 with him, so he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also initiated a proceeding before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur, but complainant/respondent No.1 refused to life with accused/petitioner No.1 without any reasonable cause and lodged a false complaint, but all these facts will be investigated during the trial. So, it is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked with regard to accused/petitioner No.1. Accused/petitioner No.1 is the husband of complainant/respondent No.1. Complainant/ respondent No.1 alleged various acts of cruelty against accused/petitioner No.1, so the petition is liable to be dismissed with regard to accused/petitioner No.1.

17 : So far as accused/petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, accused/petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, accused/ petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law, accused/ petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law and accused/petitioner No.5 is brother-in-law of complainant/respondent No.1. Complainant/respondent No.1 also stated before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur, that lastly, accused/ petitioner No.5 came to her parents house and he brought her at matrimonial home and she lived with accused/petitioner No.1 and all other family members had gone in another house of village. So, it is evident that lastly respondent No.1 lived with accused/petitioner No.1. During this period, some dispute arose against the accused/petitioner No.1 and complainant/respondent No.1. Thereafter, complainant/respondent No.1 left her matrimonial house and she had gone to her parents house. Complainant/respondent No.1 did not allege any specific incident and act of cruelty against accused/petitioners No. 2 to 5. There are general allegations against accused/ petitioners No. 2 to 5. She did not allege any act of demand of dowry against accused/petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 before the Parivar Paramarsh kendra, Chhatarpur. So, it appears that accused/petitioners No. 2 to 5 have been implicated in malafide manner in this case on account of being family members of accused/petitioner No.1. Therefore, proceeding initiated against accused/petitioners No. 2 to 5 is abuse of process of law, so this is a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked with regard to accused/petitioners No. 2 to 5.

18: Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands partly allowed. The present petition filed by accused/petitioner No.1 stands dismissed and so far as it relates to accused/petitioners No. 2 & 5, order dated 1.12.2018, passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur (MP), in Criminal Revision No.01/2018 and proceeding of Complaint Case No.523/2017, pending in the Court of JMFC for offence under Section under Sections 498-A of IPC, stands quashed.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE A.Praj.

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2020.05.20 15:04:07 +05’30’

Wife living separately without any reason NOT entitled to CrPC 125 maintenance. Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lawyer wife leaves Matrimonial home few DAYS days after marriage. Goes away with her brother ostensibly to find him a (find the brother) a match. Wife Never returns back even after husband calling her back. Wife Claims harassment, cruelty etc and seeks maintenance. Looses at Madhya Pradesh HC based on FACTs of the case

money_cash

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR BENCH INDORE

( Single Bench )

( Hon’ble Shri Justice Jarat Kumar Jain )

Criminal Revision No.829 of 2014

Anil S/o Shri Suganchandra Jain

VERSUS

Smt. Sunita W/o Shri Anil Kumar Jain and State of M.P.

********

Shri S.J.Polekar, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1

Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.

https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

********

ORDER

( Passed on this th day of November, 2016 )

THIS revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in M.Cr.C. No.203/2014 whereby directed the applicant/husband to pay maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of order.

[2] It is an admitted fact that applicant’s marriage was performed with non-applicant on 20.04.2008 and they lived together first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days i.e. 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008. Thereafter non-applicant/wife had left matrimonial home and since then she is living in her parental home at Ratlam. She is an enrolled Advocate since the year 1991.

[3] Non-applicant/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stating that when she lived in her matrimonial home since 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008 during that period her husband (applicant) and mother-in-law had so harassed her that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home, before leaving the matrimonial home her https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick signatures were obtained on blank stamp papers. Applicant’s first marriage was performed with Ranjana but only after two months she divorced the applicant due to harassment of applicant. Non-applicant is having no means to maintain herself whereas applicant is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicine and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. On these grounds she claimed maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of application.

[4] Applicant in the reply denied the allegations and stated that he and his mother had never harassed the non-applicant. On 23.05.2008, in the absence of applicant non-applicant had left matrimonial home along with her brother Anil and one Shrenik Bapna. On 26.05.2008 applicant went to Ratlam to take non-applicant with him, however, she refused to come with the applicant, thereafter applicant made many attempts to take back her https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick but she was not ready to come back and live with applicant. Thus, she is living in her parental home without any reason. The applicant is hardly earned Rs.3,000/- per month and he has to maintain his sick mother also; whereas non-applicant is an Advocate and has sufficient income to maintain herself. In such circumstances, she is not entitled for maintenance.

[5] Both the parties adduced evidence. Trial Court held that the non-applicant was harassed by her mother-in-law and applicant. Hence, she had sufficient reason not to live with her husband/applicant. Applicant is earning more than Rs.50,000/- per year whereas non-applicant/wife had no income from the profession as an Advocate. Hence, Trial Court directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of order. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision.

[6] Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the non- applicant had left the matrimonial home voluntarily and is living in her parental home without any reason. The finding of trial court that only in 12 days non-applicant was so harassed that she was forced to leave matrimonial home is erroneous. Actually she is practicing lawyer since the year 1991 at Ratlam and has sufficient income to maintain herself. Thus, she is not entitled for maintenance. Trial court gave a finding that applicant used to earn Rs.50,000/- per year; whereas directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- per year to the non-applicant. Such direction is against the evidence on record. Thus, the order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. For this purpose learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash Kushwaha V/s. Smt. Pooja reported in 2014 (2) JLJ 189 and Savita Bai V/s. Prahlad reported in 2013 (3) M.P. Weekly Note 77.

[7] On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-applicant supports the impugned order and submitted that the non- applicant/wife is ready to live with the applicant; however, due to harassment she is compelled to live separately. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Bai Patel V/s. Shyam Kumar Patel reported in JT 2002 (3) SC 409 held that the responsibility of husband to maintain his wife and wife has the right to claim maintenance so long as she stays away from the matrimonial home under compelling circumstances. This court in the case of Dalibai V/s. Rajendra Singh reported in 2006 (1) MPLJ 495 held that wife left matrimonial house and started living separately due to harassment by husband. To prove this fact statement of wife is sufficient to hold that there was reasonable and sufficient cause available to her to live separately, hence the revision be dismissed.

[8] After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record.

[9] This Court has to examine the findings of Trial Court as to whether non-applicant/wife has sufficient reason to live separately and whether she is unable to maintain herself.

[10] Admittedly after marriage non-applicant/wife lived in her matrimonial home first time for 7 days. There is no allegation that during that period she was harassed by her in-laws, thereafter she lived in her matrimonial home from 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008 i.e. for 12 days, thereafter she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. In this regard it is useful to refer Para 9 of her deposition in which she admitted that she was having a mobile phone and used to talk with her brother, however, she has not made any complaint about her harassment to her brother. She left matrimonial home with her brother Anil. But she has not made any complaint to anybody or lodged a report at Police Station. On the other hand, her brother Anil Chhajed (PW-2) deposed that on 22.05.2008 she came to Ratlam to select a girl for his marriage. Anil did not depose that non-applicant has complained him about harassment in her matrimonial home. https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ In the cross-examination of the applicant no question was asked about alleged cruelty and harassment.

[11] I would like to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Savita Bai (Supra) in which after marriage Savita Bai resided only for 8 days in the house of her husband and thereafter, she left the house without any reason and unable to prove the charge of harassment. Under such circumstances, this Court has held that â??the applicant-wife is not entitled for maintenance.â? In the present case also non-applicant-wife resided in her matrimonial home for the first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days and it is alleged that in these 12 days she was harassed. It is practically impossible that she could have been so harassed that it is impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home. After 12 days she had voluntarily gone with her brother with a view to select a girl for marriage of her brother. https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ Thus, it can not be held that she was thrown with force from her matrimonial home or she was forced to leave her matrimonial home.

[12] Learned counsel for the non-applicants placed reliance on the judgment of Laxmi Bai Patel (Supra) and Dalibai (Supra). Facts of these cases are quite different, https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ therefore, these cases are not helpful to the non-applicants.

[13] With the aforesaid, I am of the view that the finding of the Trial Court that non-applicant/wife has sufficient reason to live separately is not sustainable in law. Non- applicant/wife is residing separately without any reason, hence, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

 

Thus, the order passed by the Trial Court is hereby set-aside and the revision is hereby allowed.

[ JARAT KUMAR JAIN ] JUDGE

ns + Adarsh

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

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak

Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

Allowing trial to proceed against innocent relatives, outsiders is a travesty of justice & abuse of law. 498a cocktail quashed

////15. It may be seen from the aforesaid judgments that the Supreme Court has expressed its concerned with regard to false implication of husband and his relatives in the cases under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by disgruntled wives. It has also been held that the tendency of falsely implicating even those relatives of husband, who lived separately and in different cities is also growing. It has been held that if there are no specific and credible allegations against, with necessary particulars against the relatives of the husband, they should not be made to suffer the ignominy of a criminal trial.

In the instant case, as we have already seen that there are specific allegations against husband Shrikant and his father Sudama Prasad who lived together in the matrimonial home of the complainant along with her. Thus, the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to stifle their prosecution. However, so far as remaining applicants/accused persons are concerned, none of them lived together with the husband and father-in-law in the matrimonial home of the complainant. Moreover, there are no specific and credible allegations with necessary particulars, against them. Only omnibus allegations shorn of even basic details, have been leveled; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, they should not be made to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. Allowing trial to proceed against the aforesaid relatives would be travesty of justice and abuse of process of law. As such, exercise of extra-ordinary powers of the High Court reserved under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is called for.
/////

10-12-2015

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR

Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2112/2015

Shrikant Tamrakar and others
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another

Present:- Hon’ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar

Dr.Anuvad Shrivastava, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER

(10-12-2015)

  1. This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants/accused persons in Crime No.32/2015 registered by P.S. City Kotwali, Chhindwara, under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
  2. The facts giving rise to this miscellaneous criminal case may briefly be stated thus: Complainant Harshna Paigwar filed a written report with the police to the effect that she was married to applicant/accused No.1 Shrikant Paigwar/Tamrakar by Hindu Rites in a Group Marriage Ceremony under the Chief Minister’s Scheme at Chhindwara, on 06-06-2014. In the marriage, her mother spent about Rs.4,00,000/- and gave gold and silver ornaments and house- hold items to the complainant. In addition thereto, she had also given Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and clothes at the time of engagement ceremony. Applicants/accused Sudama Prasad Tamrakar is father, Amarlal Tamrakar is father’s brother-in- law, Uma Tamrakar is father’s sister, Anoop Tamrakar is brother-in-law, Eshwari Tamrakar is sister, Sachin Chandravanshi is brother-in-law and Jaishri Chandravanshi is sister of applicant No.1 Shrikant Tamrakar. Applicant No.9 Krishna Tamrakar is not in relation with applicant No.1 Shrikant Tamrakar. When the complainant went to matrimonial home at Chhindwara, from her maternal home at Chichli, Gadarwara, her two sisters-in-law Eshwari and Jaishri and their husbands Anoop and Sachin as also her father-in- law’s sister Uma and her husband Amarlal Tamrakar as well as Krishna Tamrakar started saying that her mother had given nothing in dowry. She ought to have given at least Rs.5,00,000/-. Krishna Tamrakar said that at Chhindwara people evem spent 10,00,000/- in marriages. The aforesaid relatives of her husband started taunting and mentally harassing her. Sudama, her father-in-law also mentally harassed her for dowry. Her husband Shrikant called his friends, to consume liquor in her matrimonial home. Shrikant told the complainant to do everything she does with him, with his friends as well. Her husband and father-in-law pressurized her to ask her mother on telephone to give a shop in dowry. Her husband and her father-in-law also forcibly administered intoxicating tablets and on one occasion, an injection to her. Once her husband and father-in-law tried to pour kerosene on her; whereon she ran away to her neighbours’ place and called her mother on telephone. Thereafter her mother came and took her to her maternal home. Her husband and father- in-law say that they would take her to her maternal home only after her mother would make arrangement for more dowry. The FIR was lodged on 14-01-2015. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court on 26-09-2015.
  3. The applicants have prayed for quashing the first information report and the proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that applicant No.1 Shrikant married complainant Harshna in Group Marriage Ceremony under the Chief Minister’s Scheme. The family of applicant Shrikant lived below poverty line. The complainant lived at her matrimonial home with applicant Shrikant only after a brief period of 10-12 days. Thereafter, her mother took her to her matrimonial home leveling false allegations against applicant Shrikant and other family members. Since, the complainant refused to live with applicant No.1 Shrikant, he served a notice dated 25-08-2014 upon her through his advocate by registered post but the complainant did not pay any heed to the aforesaid notice. Consequently applicant No.1 Shrikant Tamrakar filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara on 18-11-2014, for restitution of conjugal rights which has been registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No.418/2014. As a counter blast to the said application, the complainant filed present first information report on 15-01-2015, wherein false allegations have been leveled not only against applicant Shrikant and father Sudama Prasad but also against Krishna Tamrakar, who is not related to applicant Shrikant as also other relatives, who lived in other towns separate from applicant Shrikant on omnibus allegations. Therefore, it has been prayed that the first information report and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
  4. A notice was directed to be issued against the complainant (respondent No.2 Harshna); however, a perusal of the Court order dated 06-08-2015 reveals that no one had appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 even after due service upon her. Thus, complainant was not represented before the Court at the time of arguments.
  5. On due consideration of the contentions of learned counsel for the applicants and respondent No.1/State as also after perusal of the case diary, this Court is of the view that this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must succeed in part.
  6. It is admitted that charge sheet in the matter has been filed. However, it has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, AIR 2013 SC 506 that the power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as the case may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence, there can be no reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of legal proceeding. Thus, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of charge against the accused. Thus, the High Court can certainly exercise power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after filing of the charge sheet or even after framing of charge.
  7. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley AIR 2011 SC 1090 that uncontroverted documents or material of unimpeachable or sterling character may be considered while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Orissa vs. Devendra Nath Padhi, 2005(1) SCC 568, Rukmani vs. Vijaya, AIR 2009 SC 1013 and Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, AIR 2013 SC (supp.) 1056.
  8. Reverting back to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is found that there is nothing on record to suggest that applicant Krishna Tamrakar (accused No.7) is, in any manner related to husband Shrikant Paigwar. Thus, the observation alleged to have been made by him that some people at Chhindwara spent even Rs.10,00,000/- in marriage, is inconsequential and does not make him liable to be implicated in a case under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
  9. So far as accused persons other than Shrikant, Sudama and Krishna are concerned, Amarlal Tamrakar is brother-in- law of Sudama Prasad. Uma Tamrakar is Amarlal’s wife and Sudama Prasad’s sister. Anoop Kumar is Eshwari’s husband and Shrikant’s brother-in-law. Likewise, Sachin is husband of Jaishri and brother-in-law of Shrikant. Eshwari and Jaishri are married sisters of Shrikant. Sister Eshwari and her husband Anoop Jasathi lived at Cheechli, Tahsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. Other sister Jaishri and her husband Sachin lived at House No.43 Patwari Colony, Khargaon. Sudama’s sister Uma Tamrakar and her husband Amarlal lived at Bhairoganj Seoni. Krishna Tamrakar lived separately from Shrikant and his father Sudama, at Chhota Talab, Chhindwara. Only Shrikant and his father lived together at 23 Nice Chowk Chhindwara. Aforesaid addresses of the applicants have been recorded after investigation, in the charge sheet. Thus, it is admitted position that apart from Shrikant and Sudama no one else has ever resided with the complainant in the same house at Chhindwara.
  10. In the first information report, which was recorded on the basis of a written report, specific allegations have been made against husband Shrikant and his father Sudama Prasad regarding harassment and cruelty for dowry; however, the allegations against the remaining applicants are omnibus in nature and no time and date of the incidents have been given. Moreover, in her statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 25-01-2015, complainant Harshna has simply stated at the end, probably by way of after-thought that other accused persons had said that more money ought to have been given in the marriage and applicants could deserved a better girl. In the end, a general statement was made that all persons had beaten her for dowry. However, no specific role in this regard has been ascribed to any of them nor time and date of the assault has been given. In any case, complainant is said to have stayed in her matrimonial home for not more than 10 or 12 days.
  11. It may be noted in this regard that the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2014(8) SCC 273, observed that: “… There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A 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 IPC 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, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.
  12. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , AIR 2010 SC 3363 that:“..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.â? â??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.â?
  13. Likewise, in the case of Neelu Chopra & anr. v. Bharti, AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 2950, Supreme Court held as follows: â??It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.â?
  14. A three judge bench of Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324 observed that: â??For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in- laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.â?
  15. It may be seen from the aforesaid judgments that the Supreme Court has expressed its concerned with regard to false implication of husband and his relatives in the cases under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by disgruntled wives. It has also been held that the tendency of falsely implicating even those relatives of husband, who lived separately and in different cities is also growing. It has been held that if there are no specific and credible allegations against, with necessary particulars against the relatives of the husband, they should not be made to suffer the ignominy of a criminal trial.
  16. In the instant case, as we have already seen that there are specific allegations against husband Shrikant and his father Sudama Prasad who lived together in the matrimonial home of the complainant along with her. Thus, the power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to stifle their prosecution. However, so far as remaining applicants/accused persons are concerned, none of them lived together with the husband and father-in-law in the matrimonial home of the complainant. Moreover, there are no specific and credible allegations with necessary particulars, against them. Only omnibus allegations shorn of even basic details, have been leveled; therefore, in the opinion of this Court, they should not be made to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. Allowing trial to proceed against the aforesaid relatives would be travesty of justice and abuse of process of law. As such, exercise of extra-ordinary powers of the High Court reserved under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is called for.
  17. Consequently, this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed in part.
  18. The first information report registered by P.S. City Kotwali, Chhindwara, in Crime No.32/2015 under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhindwara, so far as they relate to applicants Eshwari, Anoop, Jaishri, Sachin, Uma, Amarlal and Krishna are quashed. The trial arising from aforesaid first information report against husband Shrikant and father-in-law Sudama Prasad, shall continue in accordance with law.

(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

#Journalist commits #suicide due to #FakeRape case threat & #5crores demand !! Sacked woman journalist threatened him

fake rape case threat on Dainik Bhaskar editor.jpg

MP journalist death: Woman scribe booked for abetting suicide

Indore, Jul 20 (PTI) An FIR was filed today against a woman scribe for allegedly abetting the suicide of senior journalist Kalpesh Yagnik, group editor of Dainik Bhaskar, the police said.

The woman, was miffed with Yagnik (55) after being sacked from the newspaper and had allegedly threatened to implicate him in false cases if she was not reinstated, Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) Shailendra Singh told PTI.

He said a first information report had been filed at the MIG police station here against the 40-year-old woman scribe on the basis of initial investigation and statements of Yagnik’s relatives.

She has been booked under IPC section 306 (abetment of suicide) and other relevant sections, he added.

“The woman journalist has not been arrested yet and a detailed investigation is underway,” the ASP said.

The police suspect that on the night of July 12 Yagnik jumped off the roof of the three-storey building on A B Road here that houses the office of the newspaper.

Shortly before his death, Yagnik had met Additional Director General (ADG) of Indore Range Ajay Kumar Sharma and complained that a woman scribe was allegedly threatening to implicate him in false cases if he did not take her back in the job.

According to the ADG, Yagnik had requested him to hear his side if the woman journalist files a police complaint against him.

Sharma had said Yagnik had given a formal application to him in this regard.

“But he did not demand any legal action against the woman journalist,” the ADG had said. PTI HWP ADU RSY DIV DIV

if , REPEAT IF, there is a rape every 15 minutes at Madhya Pradesh then that 35000 rapes per year !! is that possible ??

Ms Priyanka C of Congress is claiming that there is one rape at Madhya Pradesh every 15 minutes. That is 4 every hour, 96 every day and 35000 every year.

That 35,000 is higher than the NATIONAL # reported

Well… Well… WEel… Eelections are about to come. Opposition will start calling Indian men, “Rapists” …

Sad, sick , terrible

Screenshot - 6_30_2018 , 6_43_58 PM

 

 

#exaggerated rape statistics

#Fake rape

#Men are raped

#Madhya Pradesh