Tag Archives: MP HC

False & Vexatious 498a and Rape cases on in laws quashed. False 498a also quashed. MP HC

False & Vexatious 498a and Rape cases on in laws quashed. False 498a also quashed. MP HC

Husband files divorce claiming that wife was previously married to some one else and lived with him, hid that fact and remarried the current poor fella. Wife appears one time for the divorce and then promptly files 498a on husband approx 1.5 months later. In that 498a there are NO allegations of rape on in laws, but later wife improvises and also files fake Rape Cases on In laws. Husband also wins the 498a case on merits at Magistrate court. Now All fake cases are quashed by Hon HC. The Hon court sees thru the abuse of process of law.

dfd... - Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench Office Photo ...

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

BENCH AT GWALIOR

SINGLE BENCH

Cr.R.No.87/2017

(Manoj Dubey and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.)

&

Cr.R.No.447/2017

(Pradumn Dubey and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr.)

——————————————————————————————–

Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Aditya Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.

——————————————————————————————-

Present : Hon. Mr. Justice Anand Pathak

ORDER

{Passed on 12th day of May, 2020}

1. Since both the petitions carry same factual tenor and texture and subject matter is also same therefore, both these criminal revision petitions taken into consideration simultaneously and are decided by the common order. For convenience sake, facts of Cr.R.No.87/2017 are taken into consideration.

2. The instant criminal revisions have been preferred by the petitioners/accused against the order dated 10.01.2017 (in Cr.R.No.87/2017) and order dated 06.02.2017 (in Cr.R.No.447/2017) passed in Case No.208/2016 whereby in sum and substance the respective applications of petitioners under Section 227/228 of Cr.P.C. for discharge have been rejected.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that on 01.05.2014 marriage was solemnized between Pradumn Dubey (son of present petitioners) i.e. petitioner No.1 in Cr.R.No.447/2017 and respondent No.2 Smt. Richa Bhargawa as per Hindu rites and rituals at Guna. It appears that due to some domestic incompatibility, respondent No.2/wife started living at her parental home at Kolaras, District Shivpuri (M.P.) since 24.02.2015. The dispute between the couple could not be resolved, therefore, on alleged grounds of living adulterous life as well as cruelty committed by respondent No.2, then husband-Pradumn Dubey filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.2/wife on 05.04.2016.

4. In his petition, he levelled specific allegations about leading adulterous life and prior to marriage, conceiving from some other male and later on aborted. Husband levelled specific allegation against respondent No.2 of having relationship with one, Ashutosh Pandey. As per allegations, she lived with Ashutosh Pandey at his village Nohrikala as his wife for sometime and after dispute with him, she came back to her parental home and thereafter, marriage with Pradumn Dubey (petitioner No.1 of Cr.R.447/2017) solemnized. Later on, this fact came to the knowledge of husband through call details of her mobile as well as from other source. All details of leading adulterous life by respondent No.-2 have been narrated in divorce petition. Respondent No.2 contested the case and led her part of evidence.

5. After considering the rival submissions and evidence, Principal Judge, Family Court Guna vide judgment dated 06.09.2017 allowed the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner-Pradumn Dubey and decree of divorce was issued and by way of divorce couple declared separate.

6. It is worthwhile to mention the fact that on 05.04.2016 divorce petition was filed and on 05.05.2016 wife caused her appearance in the Court and immediately thereafter, on 15.05.2016 she lodged FIR under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, showing the dates of alleged offence between 01.05.2014 i.e. date of marriage to 12.10.2015, the date from which she started living separately. In the said FIR, there is not even a whisper in respect of allegation of committing attempt to rape and outraging her modesty by her brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey (Petitioner No.2 in Cr.R.447/2017).

7. On 23.06.2016, she lodged another FIR vide Crime No.327/2016 at Police Station Guna Kotwali for the offence under Sections 376 and 511 of IPC against all the petitioners for committing the offence of attempt to rape and outraging her modesty. In the said FIR, period of incident shown to be from 05.06.2014 to 28.02.2015. Perusal of FIR indicates the date of event as 05.06.2014 at Haridwar and thereafter, one more incident of attempt to rape by her brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey around one year back from the date of FIR.

8. Investigation carried out and charge-sheet submitted. Trial Court framed the charges against all the petitioners (except petitioner No.2 in Cr.R.No.447/2017) in respect of Sections 498-A, 376/109, 354/109 of IPC and brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey (petitioner No.2 of Cr.R.447/2017) was saddled with Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC .

9. Meanwhile, divorce petition filed by the husband-Pradumn Dubey was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017, in which this fact has been considered that respondent No.2 lodged a false FIR to the offence of attempt to rape to exert pressure over the petitioners.

10. Meanwhile on 26.09.2019 during the pendency of present petitions, first FIR lodged against all the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act also resulted in acquittal of all the petitioners on merits and the said judgment dated 26.09.2019 is on record.

11. Therefore, through this revision petition, petitioners have challenged the rejection of application for discharge preferred by them under Sections 227/228 of Cr.P.C.. In Cr.R.No.447/2017, petitioners (husband and brother- in-law of respondent No.2-wife) also preferred revision against order dated 06.02.2017 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners in respect of offence under Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC for Rahul Dubey and Section 498-A, 376/109 and 354/109 of IPC against Pradumn Dubey.

12. It is the submissions of counsel for the petitioners that it is factually clear that FIR of leveling allegations of attempt to rape and outrage her modesty are complete abuse of the process of Court and such process cannot be allowed for harassment. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604.

13. It is further submitted that after filing of divorce petition by the husband as counter blast, respondent No.2 lodged FIR under Section 498-A of IPC without mentioning therein any allegations of attempt to rape whereas she filed the said FIR on 15.05.2016 and at that point of time, if subsequent FIR is seen then it is clear that she referred the incident dated 05.06.2014 and the incident is of one year thereafter. Therefore, she could have narrated the said allegations in her first FIR filed under Section 498-A of IPC. It appears that when she realized that she is not getting sufficient material to harass the present petitioners only on the basis of offence under Section 498-A of IPC then she resorted to another FIR including the offence under Sections 376 and 354 of IPC, which is clear abuse of process of law and she cannot be permitted to start litigation at her whims on flimsy pretext and harass the petitioner till eternity. He referred the vagueness made by the prosecutrix in her written complaint, FIR and police statement/statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that although this is revision petition but since this Court exercises the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., also then scope of revision is not limited. He relied upon the case of Rajiv Thapar & Ors vs Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 331 to submit that even in revisional jurisdiction if the injustice is caused then same can be taken care of. Here in the present case petitioners are constantly harassed by the wife. FIR is a delayed FIR and an afterthought.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition.

15. Counsel for the complainant also raised the point regarding merits of the case and submits that trial Court would decide the case and allegations prima facie apparently exist and therefore, same needs to be tried through leading evidence.

16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case dairy/documents.

17. In the present case, petitioners have filed the revision petitions in which one is against order of discharge and another is against order of framing charge. Scope of revision is not so limited as tried to be projected by the counsel for respondent because revisional Court can see the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed as well as the regularity of any proceeding of any Court below.

18. Therefore, looking to the scope as provided in Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., this Court has sufficient jurisdiction to look into correctness or propriety of any order passed by the Sessions Court. So far as present case is concerned, respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on 23.06.2016 by filing a written complaint. Contents of written complaint and FIR are almost identical. Later on, her police statement was taken on same day i.e. 23.06.2016 then also she repeated the allegations but next day in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, she made her statement only in one para and the same is reproduced as under for ready reference:-

19. Perusal of the said statement indicates that she referred the role of her brother-in-law-Rahul Dubey but she nowhere refers the role of her husband or her father and mother-in-law (petitioners of Cr.R.No.87/2017). The statement recorded just after one day i.e. 24.06.2016 therefore, it cannot be assumed that by the efflux of time, she forgot the details of incident. She tries to improve upon some contents qua Rahul Dubey which were not earlier lodged in the written complaint, FIR or police statement. Material contradictions and omissions exist in all her statements and contents of her written complaint as well as F.I.R. This shows her intention.

20. This fact has material bearing that after marriage (on 01.05.2014) her brother-in-law- Rahul Dubey started misbehaving with her and first incident is of dated 05.06.2014 one month after the date of marriage. Apparently such allegation comes under the doubt for the reason that if she was so upset by the advances of her brother-in-law then she should have immediately reported her family members, husband as well as father/mother-in-law or to the police. She left her matrimonial home on 24.02.2015 and the said fact reflected in the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Guna. When she left her matrimonial home within 10 months of her marriage on 24.02.2015 and thereafter, if any advances were made by the brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey then she had one more opportunity to raise her voice and/or to mention the said fact in earlier FIR. The Police Station Kolaras District Shivpuri registered the case vide Crime No.204/2016 against all four petitioners of the instant case for alleged offence under Section 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on which trial was conducted before the JMFC Kolaras, District Shivpuri and vide judgment dated 26.09.2019 the said case resulted into acquittal of all the four petitioners/accused.

21. Reference of one compromise deed (Ex.P-3 of the said case) also finds place in judgment of the trial Court in which she accepted the fact that she was not allowed restrained by the petitioner/husband to go to the place of her brother-in-law (thtkth -Akhil) because her husband did not like the idea of going and staying for day’s together at her sister and brother-in-law’s place. In the said compromise deed dated 03.12.2014, she accepted that she wants to live happily with her matrimonial family and she would not be restrained by the family members/petitioners.

22. The facts of misbehavior by Rahul Dubey could have reflected in the settlement deed dated 03.12.2014 because as per the allegations, first incident of misbehavior by brother-in-law -Rahul Dubey was committed on 05.06.2014 at Haridwar therefore, on 03.12.2014, she could have referred this fact in compromise deed and could have ensured her modesty and chastity but same does not find place in the settlement deed or in the judgment dated 26.09.2019 passed by the JMFC, Kolaras. On this ground also, it appears that she filed the instant cases on false pretext just for harassment.

23. Interestingly, first FIR under Section 498-A of IPC was filed by the prosecutrix at Police Station Kolaras on 15.05.2016 and after one month she again filed an FIR with same allegations of dowry demand but with addition of Section 354 and 376 of IPC. Second FIR was filed at Police Station Guna Kotwali, District Guna. This shows the bend of mind and motive of respondent No.2 to keep harassing the petitioners on the pretext or the other. These facts create sufficient doubt about the actual disposition of respondent No.2 and her intention to wreak vengeance. Criminal law cannot be used as a tool for oppression, harassment and embarrassment to the common man. Here respondent No.2 tried to misuse the process of law for extending harassment to the petitioners. She knows that all petitioners are Government Teachers and their entanglement in criminal proceedings would cost them heavily. Therefore, she is enjoying peevish pleasure.

24. When divorce proceedings successfully pursued by the petitioner/husband Pradumn Dubey and when all four petitioners successfully contested the trial of Section 498-A of IPC then again relegating them back for the trial for same offence under Section 498-A of IPC would be travesty of justice because long drawn litigation itself is a type of punishment or at-least harassment to the common man which cannot be permitted in those cases where malice of complainant is apparent on record.

25. Even otherwise on merits, no allegations of attributes of Section 376 or 354 of IPC existed or reiterated by the complainant in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. qua other petitioners because allegations are only against Rahul Dubey but since the mens rea or ill-motive is apparent which is being established by the documents available on record, therefore, this Court cannot sit with blind eyes to allow the continuation of the abuse of process of law. Interestingly, her case suffers from delay and latches also because she could not explain delay and factual inconsistency in her complaint and statements.

26. In the case of Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 (9) SCC 766 the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the scope of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under:- “15.But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.”

27. In the cumulative analysis and going through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar (Supra) and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that it is case where interference would advance the cause of justice therefore, this Court intends to allow both the revisions filed by the petitioners.

28. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any ground to proceed further in the litigation and trial Court erred in rejecting the application under Section 227/228 of Cr.P.C. for discharge as well as erred in framing charge as per impugned order dated 10.01.2017 (in Cr.R.No.87/2017) and order dated 06.02.2017 (in Cr.R.No.447/2017) and both the impugned orders are hereby set-aside and no case for trial has been made out by the prosecution.

29. Resultantly, petitioners are discharged from the clutches of charges under Sections 498-A and 376/109, 354/109 of IPC and petitioner Rahul Dubey for the offence under Sections 498-A, 376/511 and Section 354 of IPC. They are set free.

30. E-copy/Certified copy, whichever is available, of this order be provided to the petitioners and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance. It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.

31. Both the revision petitions stand allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Ashish* (Anand Pathak)

Judge

ASHISH

CHAURASIA

2020.05.12

18:38:05

-07’00’

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’

498a shortly after marriage. Brother & sister-in-law, staying separately, roped in. Quashed partly! MP HC

PIL filed in Madhya Pradesh HC against 'slapping' of CAA ...

#ipc498a #498a #Dealyed498a #FIR5months after ALLEGED incidents

#GeneralAllegations #Brother #sis-in-law roped in !!

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava

M.Cr.C No.10097/2019

Smt. Laxmi Balmiki & others

VS.

State of M.P. & another

———————————————————————————–

Shri Rajendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Sharad Singh Baghel, learned P.L. for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Surendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

————————————————————————————

ORDER

(20.05.2020) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the FIR in Crime No. 35/18 registered at Mahila Thana, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. They also pray for quashing of the consequential proceeding bearing RCT No. 8/2019 pending before JMFC, Sagar.

2. According to the case, on the basis of a complaint made by complainant/respondent No. 2, the police has registered a case under the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and one Rajesh Balmiki, husband of respondent No. 2. It is mentioned in the FIR that the marriage of respondent No. 2 was solemnized with Rajesh Balmiki on 15.05.2017. The family members of the respondent have given sufficient articles at the time of marriage. The respondent was living with the petitioners in joint family. She further mentioned that after the ceremony of first Bidai, the petitioner No. 1 (mother in law) started taunting her on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. She further alleged that the petitioner No. 1 abused her and used to starve her. Further, when she made a complaint of petitioner No. 1 to her father-in-law i.e. petitioner No. 2, they along with husband Rajesh scuffled with her. Thereafter her sister in law and brother in law (Jeth- Jethani) i.e. petitioner No. 3 & 4 came there and told her to bring rupees 10 lakh. She alleged that all the petitioners committed marpeet with her. She also alleged against her husband for demand of dowry and torture. She stated that on 07.07.2018, the petitioners made a conspiracy with her husband to kill her.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that they never demanded any dowry from the respondent No. 2 and her family members. He further submits that according to respondent No. 2, last incident was occurred on 07.07.2018 but the complaint was lodged on 04.12.2018, after the period of five months. The respondent No. 2 has not given any satisfactory explanation in this regard. Hence, the allegations made in the FIR, are afterthoughts and concocted. He further argued that the respondent No. 2 herself stated that soon after the marriage, the petitioners started torturing her but she never lodged any FIR or complaint prior to the FIR in question. He stated that respondent No. 2 is a rude woman and she was making pressure on the petitioners to send her husband at her parental house to live separately. Her husband was not ready so she implicated all the family members in this false case. There is also contradiction in the police statements of the witnesses. He further submits that petitioners No. 3 and 4 reside separately from the other accused and respondent No. 2, even then they have been implicated in the case. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 are old age persons, moreover, petitioner No. 1 is a Government servant, hence, just to create pressure on account of her revenge, the respondent No. 2 made them as accused. The petitioner No. 1 and 2 are also living separately and same is indicated from their complaint dated 25.07.2018 filed before the SP Sagar. Further, there is no independent witness in the case. With the aforesaid submission, he prays for allowing this petition. In support of his contention, he relied on the some judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

4. On the other hand, learned panel lawyer for respondent No. 1/State as well and counsel for respondent No. 2 oppose the petition submitting that there is sufficient material available in the case to prosecute the petitioners. The complainant has specifically alleged against all the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, hence, FIR may not be quashed at this stage. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that the offences are related to matrimonial cases and are continuing offences, hence, no question of delay in lodging the FIR, specially when the complainant stated that she was trying to save her relation. He further submits that all the petitioners have demanded dowry and for the same reason, they tortured her mentally and physically. He submits that at this initial stage of trial, the Court may not go into the question of truthfulness or veracity of complaint made by the respondent No. 2, it is for the trial Court to decide the same in trial. On perusal of FIR, there is sufficient prima facie material to prosecute them further, hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he relied on the order passed by the High Court of Gauhati in the case of Rajiv Deori @ Rajiv Kumar Deori and others Vs. Riju Bharali and another passed in Criminal Petition No. 270/2015 dated 22.01.2016.

5. Heard and perused the case diary.

6. On perusal of case diary, it appears that the allegations made against the petitioners are that they have tortured the respondent No. 2 on account of non fulfilment of dowry for which the respondent No. 2 has registered the FIR in aforesaid crime number. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, it would be appropriate to decide the said issue first.

7. At this juncture, I would like to quote the following portion from the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under :-

“12. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case………..”

8. Further, in the case of P. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (2019) 5 SCC 403, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :-

12. Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty-bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely. [See Apren Josephv.State of Kerala[Apren Josephv.State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114

9. On careful reading of the above referred citations, it is revealed that the prosecution case cannot be discarded solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report if the prosecution has satisfactorily explained the delay. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely.

10. In the present case, the case diary shows that on the basis of written complaint dated 04.12.2018, filed by respondent No. 2, the FIR has been registered by the police on 09.12.2018. The incident period which is mentioned in the FIR is from 16.05.2017 to 25.07.2018. On perusal of FIR, the last incident of conspiracy to kill her by her in-laws is alleged to be occurred on 07.07.2018 i.e. about five months before the registration of the FIR. In the application submitted to SP Sagar, the complainant stated that after the incident of 07.07.2018 when she came to her parental home, her parents were trying to convince her but in the meanwhile the petitioners have filed the complaint to SP Sagar against her.

11. In my opinion the matrimonial offences are somehow different as that of other offences and due to social slander and bounding, there is always a possibility of delay in availing the legal remedy by the bride or her family members, perhaps to save their relationship. Moreover, in any eventuality whether there is any inordinate delay in lodging the FIR or not, same would be tested at trial. At this stage, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be a ground for discharge.

12. Now, I proceed to examine the merits of the case to find out whether any case is made out against the petitioners or not ? In this context, first I would like to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for quashing the FIR. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the power under section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The court issued seven guidelines to exercise the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. Same are quoted herein under :

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

14. 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.”

15. Further, in the case of Preeti Gupta & anothers Vs. State of Jharkhand & another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363, the Apex Court expressed its anxiety in increasing the number of matrimonial cases and roping the close relative of husband in the case. The Court 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.

16. 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.”

17. Likewise, in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Hon’ble Apex Court has noted that in the matrimonial dispute, there is tendency to involve the entire family members of the husband. The Court 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 that matter was that the Courts would not encourage such dispute.”

18. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the marriage of respondent No. 2 was solemnized with accused Rajesh Balmiki on 15.05.2017 and the petitioners are her matrimonial family members. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are mother in law and father in law of respondent No. 2 whereas petitioners No. 3 and 4 are her brother in law and sister in law, respectively. It is found that respondent No. 2 alleged that petitioner No. 1 & 2 have abused her and her family members. Petitioner No. 1 has also taunted her for bringing less dowry. So far as petitioner No. 3 and 4 are concerned, they are brother in law and sister in law of respondent No. 2 and allegation against them is that when the husband of complainant was beating her, they came there and told her to bring ten lakh rupees from her parents. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 alleged that all the petitioners and her husband beaten her. For the incident of 07.07.2018, the respondent No. 2 specifically alleged against her husband that he beaten and tried to hang her.

19. On perusal of case diary, it is found that the petitioner No. 1 and 2 have also filed an application before SP Sagar on 09.07.2018 alleging against the respondent No. 2 and her husband and mentioned that they told respondent No. 2 and her husband to live apart from them thereafter they started living separately but on perusal of application dated 25.07.2018 filed by the husband of respondent No. 2 before Mahila Police Thana Sagar, it appears that it is not mentioned by the husband of respondent No. 2 that they were living apart from petitioner No. 1 and 2.

20. So far as petitioners No. 3 and 4 are concerned they are brother in law and sister in law of respondent No. 2 and were living separately. In this regard, they have file a document of Samagra Portal. On perusal of statement of respondent No. 2 and witnesses namely Savitri and Rahul, the allegation lavelled against the petitioner No. 3 and 4 are found general in nature. Considering the case at hand in the light of the aforesaid pronouncements and after minute perusal of the case diary, it is found that the main grievance of respondent no. 2 is against her husband/accused Rajesh Balmiki and petitioner No. 1 and 2 who were allegedly living together and had beaten and tortured her, but the petitioner No. 3 and 4 have also been roped in the case merely because of their relation with him. Petitioners no. 1 & 2 are father and mohter-in-law of respondent No. 2 and looking to the specific allegation against them, they are not entitled to get any relief by this Court. So far as petitioner No. 3 and 4 are concerned, prima facie they are living separately and for want of any specific allegation or disclosure of precise incident against them, it would amount to abuse of the process of law to allow their prosecution for alleged offences. The allegation made against them are found vague and general in nature.

21. Therefore, this petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the FIR in crime No. 35/18 registered at Mahila Thana, District Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and its consequential proceeding bearing RCT No. 8/2019 pending before JMFC, Sagar are hereby quashed against the petitioners No. 3 and 4 only. The trial shall be continued in relation to petitioners No. 1 and 2 and this petition is dismissed in their context. It is also made clear that any findings of this order shall not affect the discretion of learned trial Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Srivastava) Judge L.R.

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2020.05.20 15:07:32 +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