Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Singh Thakur vs Supriya Saxena on 20 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703
JBP:41703
1 M.P. No.1492/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S.
G AHLUWALIA
ON THE 20th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS
ELLANEOUS PETITION No. 1492 of 2024
DHARMENDRA SINGH THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
SUPRIYA SAXENA
.............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri B.N. Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
.............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-
relief(s):
7.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Set-aside Set aside the whole proceeding in respect of the MJC R/474/2022 (Annexure P/3) pending before the XVII Civil Judge Class I, Bhopal, in the interest of Justice. Class-I, 7.2 Any other relief this Hon'ble Court ma may also grant in favor of the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 22/03/2024 passed in the case of Ankit Gehlot and Others Vs. Smt. Anjali in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.52034/2022 (Indore Bench) has held that an application under Section 482 for challenging the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short 'DVA') is NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 2 M.P. No.1492/2024 not maintainable and accordingly, it is submitted that the present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is maintainable.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law, fa law, petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law law and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law brother law ((Jeth) of the respondent. The respondent lodged an FIR in Crime No.1260/2021 at Police Station Kolar Road, Bhopal for offence under Sections 498 498-A, 323 and 294 of IPC.
PC. FIR was lodged against petitioner No.1 only alleging that she got married to petitioner No.1 on 08/06/2009. Her parents had given an amount of Rupees Four Lakhs in cash, Gold ornaments and household articles. The respondent resided with petitioner No.1 in Bangalore where petitioner No.1 used to pass taunts with regard to giving less dowry and was also in habit of abusing her by using filthy language. She always used to suggest that her parents have performed the marriage as per their financial capabilities capabilities and since she is also in job, therefore both can bear the expenses. However, the behavior of petitioner No.1 did not improve and he used to beat her. After one year, she gave birth to a baby boy.
boy After fter marriage, petitioner No.1 used to take her salary on the pretext that they have to purchase a property. Petitioner etitioner No.1 was also not giving any money for household expenses by alleging that since the respondent is in job, therefore she should bear the expenses of herself her and her child. On 23/05/2021 when she and her child were in house, at that time, petitioner No.1 came and said that the respondent should leave the petitioner No.1 as he wants to go to Rishikesh and he does not want to continue in relationship either with the respondent or her family members.
members. When a question was asked by the respondent that who would bear the expenses of her and her NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 3 M.P. No.1492/2024 child, then petitioner No.1 started quarrelling and us used abusive language. He also started start assaulting her. As the respondent got afraid, therefore she went to bathroom where petitioner No.1 also came and twisted her hand, hold her hairs hair and dashed her head against the wall. When the respondent went out, she was assaulted by legs. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 went outside the bathroom. The respondent tried to contact the Police but could not succeed. Since the petitioner No.1 was assaulting her, therefore she locked herself in the bathroom. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 went to Meerut after taking his belonging. She narrated the entire incident to her parents. Her parents-in-law/ par law/ petitioners No.2 & 3 requested the parents of respondent that respondent should not lodge a report and they would convince petitioner No.1 and everything would get normalize. On the next day, day, petitioner No.1 came back, however, respondent was continuously residing in a locked room. Thereafter petitioner No.2 insisted the mother of respondent that the Gold ornaments which were given by him in the marriage should be returned back. Accordingly, the jewelry was returned back by the respondent to petitioner No.1. Thereafter respondent made a complaint to Mahila Thana Faridabad on 04/06/2021 but no action was taken. Since respondent and her child chi d were afraid and were residing by locking themselves in a room and as the respondent was under threat, therefore she came back to Bhopal along with her parents and accordingly, it is submitted that she wants action against her husband Dharmendra/ petitioner No.1.
4. By referring to complaint made by respondent under Section 12 of DVA, it is submitted that the respondent made additional allegations against the petitioners. It was alleged that petitioners were passing taunts NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 4 M.P. No.1492/2024 on the ground of bringing less dowry. They were also in habit of passing taunts onn household works.. Petitioners also used to beat her. It was further alleged that petitioners petitioner No.2 to 4 were always instigating the petitioner No.1 to demand more dowry. Whenever she refused to fulfill their demand, then she was beaten. The mother-in-law/ law/ petitioner No.3 also used to abuse her filthily on the ground of non non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Even petitioner No.4 was also in habit of abusing her on the ground that respondent did not bring the household articles. The complaint under Section 12 of DVA was filed on 04/01/2022, whereas the FIR was lodged on 23/09/2021 i.e. prior to making of complaint under Section 12 of DVA. Therefore, it is submitted that if the FIR lodged by the respondent is read along with the complaint filed under Section 12 of DVA, then it is clear that additional allegations have been made by the respondent against petitioners No.2 to 4 which clearly shows that those allegations are after thought and have been falsely alleged in order to prosecute the petitioners petitioners under Section 12 of DVA. It is further submitted that the respondent had also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The application filed by the respondent was rejected on the ground that she is capable of maintaining herself as her monthly hly salary is Rs.1,30,000/-
Rs.1,3 however, monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.27,000/-
Rs.27,000/ was granted to the child. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged after 13-14 13 14 years and similarly the complaint under Section 12 of DVA has also been lodged after 13 years of marriage.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. The solitary ground which has been raised by petitioners for challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of DVA is that in the FIR the respondent had not leveled any allegations against th the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 5 M.P. No.1492/2024 petitioners whereas in the complaint she has leveled certain allegations which are after thought and false.
7. Accordingly, counsel for petitioners was directed to point out that this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 227 of Constitution of India can adjudicate the correctness, reliability liability of the allegations made in the complaint filed under Section 12 of DVA and whether this Court while doing so can compare the allegations made in the FIR as well as in the complaint ffiled under Section 12 of DVA?
8. Counsel for the petitioners could not point out as to how the allegations made in the FIR can be considered without giving an opportunity to the respondent to explain the omissions.
9. FIR is not an encyclopedia. In the FIR, it is is also mentioned that petitioner No.2 had instructed the mother of respondent to return all the Gold jewelry which was given by the petitioners during marriage and accordingly, respondent had returned the said jewellery.
jewel ry. Why petitioner No.2 insisted for return turn of jewellery jewel ry was not explained by the petitioners except by saying that the allegation was false.
10. It is well established principle of law that this Court at the stage of quashment of the proceedings cannot conduct a roving enquiry or a mini trial to find out as to whether the allegations are true or false.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 has held as under:-
"13. From the aforesaid decisions of this this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943 (1943- NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 6 M.P. No.1492/2024
44)
4) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18], 18], the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences. 13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the "rarest of rare cases". (The (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, /complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. 13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. TheThe inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. 13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non non-
interference would result in miscarriage of justice, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 7 M.P. No.1492/2024 the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. 13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned appropriate Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint self restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp (1) (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426],, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 8 M.P. No.1492/2024 consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
12. The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 1 SCC 337 has held as under :
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned order and other material placed on record, we are of the view that the High Court exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction conferred under Section ion 482 CrPC, and quashed the proceedings. Even before the investigation is completed by the investigating agency, the High Court entertained the writ petition, and by virtue of interim order granted by the High Court, further investigation was stalled. Ha Having regard to the allegations made by the appellant/informant, whether the 2nd respondent by clicking inappropriate pictures of the appellant has blackmailed her or not, and further the 2nd respondent has continued to interfere by calling Shoukin Malik or not are the matters for investigation. In view of the serious allegations made in the complaint, we are of the view that the High Court should not have made a roving inquiry while considering the application filed under Section 482 CrPC. Though the learnedd counsel have made elaborate submissions on various contentious issues, as we are of the view that any observation or findings by this Court, will affect the investigation and trial, we refrain from recording any findings on such issues. From a perusal of the order of the High Court, it is evident that the High Court has got carried away by the agreement/settlement arrived at, between the parties, and recorded a finding that the physical relationship of the appellant with the 2nd respondent was consensual.
When it is the allegation of the appellant, that such document itself is obtained under threat and coercion, it NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 9 M.P. No.1492/2024 is a matter to be investigated. Further, the complaint of the appellant about interference by the 2nd respondent by calling Shoukin Malik and further further interference is also a matter for investigation. By looking at the contents of the complaint and the serious allegations made against 2nd respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has committed error in quashing the proceedings.
(Underline supplied)
13. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 has held as under:
under:-
"7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court at a stage when the investigation was yet to be completed,eted, is completely incorrect and uncalled for ..........."
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 has held as under :
12. The counsel appearing for the appellant also drew our attention to the same decision which is relied upon in the impugned judgment by the High Court i.e. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.. In the said decision, this Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any specific guidelines or watertight compartment as to when the power under Section 482 CrPC could be or is to be exercised. This Court, however, gave an exhaustive list of various kinds of cases wherein such power could be exercised. In para 103 of the said judgment, this Court, however, hastened to add that as a note of caution it must be stated that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases for the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report or in the complaint and that the extraordinary or the inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 10 M.P. No.1492/2024 whim or caprice.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 has held as under :
5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court when hen approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding will not appreciate the defence of the accused; neither would it consider the veracity of the document(s) on which the accused relies. However an exception has been carved out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung v.
Essem Chemical Industries;
Industries State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to the effect that in an appropriate case where the document relied upon is a public document or where veracity thereof is not disputed by the complainant, complainant, the same can be considered.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :
18. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court. It is true that the Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, otherwise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly.
needlessly. At the same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit short circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without full-fledged full fledged enquiry.
19. Though the High Court may exercise its power relating to cognizable offences to to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should be exercised sparingly. For example, where the allegations made in the FIR or NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 11 M.P. No.1492/2024 complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused or where there is express xpress legal bar provided in any of the provisions of the Code or in any other enactment under which a criminal proceeding is initiated or sufficient material to show that the criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaki wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge, the High Court may step in.
20. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. We make it clear that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.
17. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under :
17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.
proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.
pro
18. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 12 M.P. No.1492/2024 reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 has held as under :
17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial.
The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for."
19. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 has held that a detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 of CrPC is not permissible and should not be done. In the case of Kunwar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:
under:-
"8........At this stage, the High Court ought no not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled well settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia..........."
20. Similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in the cases of Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678, NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:41703 JBP:41703 13 M.P. No.1492/2024 Teeja Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221, State of Orissa Vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547, S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Sangeeta Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336, Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437, M.N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682.
21. Thus it is clear that while examining FIR/ complaint complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or correctness of the allegations made in the FIR/ complaint and the proceedings should not be scuttled at the initial stage. Even otherwise, otherwise, the proceedings under Section 12 of DVA are not criminal in nature except proceedings under Section 31 of DVA.
22. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot compare the allegations made in the FIR along with the allegations made in the complaint filed under Section 12 of DVA to verify the correctness and reliability liability of the allegations made under Section 12 of DVA.
23. No other argument is advanced by counsel for petitioners.
24. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made ade out warranting interference.
25. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.08.23 11:28:05 +05'30'