Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammed Khalil Usmani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2017
MCRC-10543-2015
(MOHAMMED KHALIL USMANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
01-05-2017
Shri Shashank Jain, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for
the respondent/State.
Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
Arguments heard.
After successful challenge to the registration of Crime No.163/2014 at P.S. Nagda, Distt-Ujjain under Section 498-A, 506/34 of IPC by his parents in MCRC No.2814/2015 [where vide order dated 05.10.2015, the charge-sheet against them has been quashed by this Court] now, the husband (present petitioner) has come before this Court for the same relief i.e. for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.163/14 on the instigation of his wife/respondent no.2.
2. Succinctly stated material facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner got married to the respondent no.2. They were blessed with two children. But, their marriage could not run happily. Respondent no.2 filed a complaint on 13.04.2013 alleging that she was being subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and was threatened by the petitioner and other co-accused persons for injuring her person. The Police registered the FIR bearing Crime No.163/14 under Section 498-A and 506/34 of IPC.
3. The registration of FIR has been challenged by parents of the petitioner by filing MCRC No.2814/2015, which was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2015 and the charge-sheet has been quashed against them by this Court.
4. The petitioner has challenged the registration of FIR and subsequent proceedings thereto stating that there are material contradictions in the statements of the respondent no.2. In the FIR, she has mentioned date of the incident as one month back from filing of the FIR i.e. 13.04.2014 while in the complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 date of incident is mentioned as 28.02.2014. Further, while giving her statement before the JMFC, Nagda under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has narrated the date as âin the month of Octoberâ. This reflects that FIR is completely based on a concocted story. There is a delay of 30 days in filing the FIR from the alleged incident and no explanation has been given for the same.
5. It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed after 12 years of marriage. When they are blessed with two children having age of about 9 years and 5 years respectively. During this period, no incident either of any violence or demand of dowry was ever mentioned by the complainant. It is averred that both the parties petitioner and respondent no.2 are residents of Distt- Indore even then the complaint has been filed at Police Station-Nagda, Distt- Ujjain, merely, because the parents of the complainant are having good relations with the local police officers. Father of the complainant is former Secretary General of Indian National Congress, Nagda, who being an influential person forced the complainant to file a false case against the petitioner.
6. Lastly, pointing out the order passed in MCRC No.2814/2015 quashing the FIR registered against the parents of the petitioner, the petitioner has vehemently argued that he is having identical case standing on the same footing, therefore, FIR lodged against him and all other subsequently proceedings of the Criminal Case No.163/14 pending before the JMFC, Nagda be quashed against him also.
7. The petitioner has also taken a ground that before filing of the complaint dated 13.04.2014 he has filed a civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore against the parents of the complainant on 27.03.2014 pending before the learned Civil Judge, First Class, Indore. Annoyed by this, the complainant has filed the present false FIR only to pressurize the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel has reiterated the same arguments taken in the grounds of the petition, repetition is not required.
9. Learned counsels for the State as well as for the respondent no.2 have opposed the prayer.
10. I have gone through the record.
11. Respondent no.2 has filed FIR against the petitioner making certain allegations of demand of dowry and of ill-treatment and cruelty for not fulfilling the same. It would be apt to mention these allegation in her own words, which reads as under:
â'kknh ds le; esjs firk us ngst esa mudh gSfl;r ds eqrkfcd lksus dk gkj lsV] pkj lksus dh pqMh] vaxwBh] ,d tksM lksus dh ckyh o pkanh dh ik;tsc o pwMh rFkk ?k:
lkeku fQzt] dwyj] okf'kax e'khu] dyj Vh-ch-] lksQk lsV] xksnjst vyekjh] nhoku] Mªsflax Vscy o crZu vkfn lkeku esjh llqjky okyksa dks fn;k FkkA 'kknh ds ckn rhu pkj ekg rd rks esjs llqjky okyksa us eq>s vPNh rjg j[kk ckn esa esjs ifr eksgEen [kyhy mLekuh o llqj eksgEen 'kjhQ mLekuh rFkk lkl gqjer ch lHkh ngst esa vkSj lkeku o uxnh dh ekax djus yxs o eq>s ijs'kku o izrkfMr djus yxsA esjs ifr dgus yxs fd eq>s bankSj esa edku cukuk gS pkj yk[k :i;s rsjs firk ls ykdj ns rks eSus ;g ckr esjs ekrk&firk dks crk;h rks mUgksus cksyk fd ge brus :i;s ugha ns ldrs gSA ekg ekpZ esa eS vius firk ds ?kj vkbZ rks esjs firk us le>k cq>kdj eq>s esjh llqjky Hkst fn;k ysfdu esjs ifr lkl o llqj fQj eq>s ijs'kku o izrkfMr dj pkj yk[k :i;s dh ekax djus yxs o djhc ,d ekg iwoZ rhuksa us eq>s :i;s ykus ds fy, ekjihV dj ?kj ls fudky fn;k o cksys fd rsjs firk ls pkj yk[k :i;s ysdj gh vkuk ugh rks tku ls [kRe dj nsxsA rc ls eSa esjs ekrk&firk ds ?kj fdYdhiqjk ukxnk jg jgh gwaA esjs ifr o llqjky okys eq>s ysus ugh vk;s gSAâ
12. In her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she stated that:
âesjk fookg ,d twu] 2002 dks eksgEen [kyhy mLekuh ls ukxnk esa gqvk FkkA esjs firk us 'kknh ds le; lksus dk gkj] pkanh dh 2 pwMh] lksus dh pkj vaxwBh] lksus dh ,d ckyh Mksy] pkanh dh ik;ti lkeku fn;k FkkA ?kj dk vU; lkeku fQzt] dwyj] dyj Vhoh] lksik] fnoku] xksnjst dh vyekjh] flykbZ e'khu] okflax e'khu o ?kj ds lkjs crZu Hkh fn;s FksA esjs llqj dk uke eksgEen jlhn mLekuh] lkl dk gqjen ch gSA 'kknh ds 2&3 ekg ckn ls eq>s lkl] llqj ijs'kku djrs FksA esjs ifr bruh ekjihV djrs Fks fd eq>s csgks'k dj nsrs FksA esjk ,d tsB eksgEen tehu mLekuh oks esjs ifr dks cksyrs Fks fd 'kcue dks NksM nsA eksgEen tehj esjs ?kj okys ds fo:) Hkgdkrs FksA esjs lkl] llqj eq>s ngst ds fy;s cksyrs FksA esjs lkl] llqj o esjs ifr us iwoZ esa dbZ ckj :i;s fy;s gS vkSj vc 4 yk[k :i;s dh ekax djus yxs A eq>s esjs ifr us esjs lkFk ekjihV dj eq>s vDVwcj ekg esa esjs ikik ds ?kj igqpk fn;k Fkk fQj esjs firk le>kSrs ds ckjs esa lkspdj [kqn eq>s esjs ifr ds ?kj tokgj ekxZ NksMus vk;s FksA mlds ckn ogk ij nks fnu jgh vkSj esjs ifr us dgk fd 4 yk[k :i;s ysdj vkuk rks gh vkuk ugha rks er vkukA esjs lkFk fQj ekjihV djh FkhA mlds ckn esa vius ekrk firk ds ?kj vk xbZ FkhAâ
13. Almost all the allegations are there in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
14. The copy of the complaint filed under Protection of Women from Violence Act, 2005 has not been filed by the petitioner alongwith the present petition.
15. Law is well settled in this regard that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extra ordinary in nature and it is settled proposition of law that this power has to be exercised springily and only in the case where attaining facts and circumstances satisfy that possibilities of miscarriage of justice will arise in case of non-use of power. The Court can interfere with the findings of the Courts in such exceptional cases where it appears that the orders if not corrected would be great injustice to someone, where in passing the order, the Court is capricious and arbitrary or where order passed by learned Courts below have been based on no evidence or material at all available on record or order has been passed on such evidence or material which is wholly irrelevant or arbitrary or where the orders suffers from fundamental legal defects or where the evidence produced in support of the claim, if taken at their face value makes out absolutely no case or where the orders 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 opponent.
16. In Krishnanan Vs. Krishnaveni (1997 AIR SCW 950 : AIR 1997 SC 987) it is held that Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by S. 397(3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under S. 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under S. 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of S. 397(3) or S. 397(2) of the Code. However, when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue. It is, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under S. 397(1) read with S. 401 of the Code. It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The object of criminal trial is to render public justice, to punish the criminal and to see that the trial is concluded expeditiously before the memory of the witness fades out.
17. In Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2009) 4 SCC 439, held that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice. Court can quash charge-sheet if allegations in FIR or complaint petitioner do not disclose commission of offence even if on face value they are taken to be correct in their entirety. While doing so, High Court is not to embark upon appreciation of evidence but to consider only material on record as a whole though the High Court is required to consider as to whether the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint petitioner fulfill the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. Further held, dispute being primarily of civil nature is not by itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings because in cases of forgery and fraud there would always be some element of civil nature.
18. Keeping in view the settled position of law no inference can be drawn in favour of the petitioner on the basis of stray contradictions or omissions in the statement or averments of the respondent no.2.
19. It reveals from the documents that after being thrown out from the matrimonial house, the respondent no.2 is staying with her parents at Nagda. Therefore, nothing is strange in filing the FIR with the Police Station, Nagda at least at this stage.
20. Allegations against the present petitioner are clear and sufficient material is available on record. The case of the present petitioner is not identical to his parents, therefore, order dated 15.10.2015 passed in MCRC No.2814/2015 does not affect merit of the case as far as it relates to the present petitioner.
21. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit against the parents of the respondent no.2. Prayer clause of this suit is interesting which reads as under:
â24- oknh lgk;rk pkgrk gS fd& ¼v½ ;g fd] ;g ?kks"k.kk dh tkos fd izfroknh dzekad 1 o 2 us oknh ls dqy :i;s 5]50]000@&pj.k dzekad 10 dh fooj.k rkfydk ds vuqlkj lgk;rk ds :i esa izkIr fd;k A ftldks fnyokus esa izfroknh dekad 3 us vge Hkwfedk fuHkkbZA ¼c½ ;g fd] izfroknh dzekad 1 o 2 ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh vkKkRed fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd os dqjkus ikd gkFk ys ysdj pj.k dzekad 10 dh fooj.k rkfydk o pj.k dzekad 15 vuqlkj dle [kkos rFkk dqjku dh vk;rksa dk ikyu djs o izfroknh dzekad 3 dks usd lykg nsosa vkSj oknh ds fo:) HkM+dkos ughaA ¼l½ bl okn dk laiw.kZ O;;
oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k tkosA ¼n½ vU; tks lgk;rk ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s og Hkh oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyokbZ tkosAâ
22. Filing of this civil suit does not falsify the allegations made by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner, no inference can be drawn in favour of the petitioner on the basis of filing such type of civil suit. It can not be accepted at this stage that the FIR is a counter blast of filing of the civil suit.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra and Another v. Bharti passed in Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2003, th decided on 7 October, 2009, but the facts of the case are not similar to the present case and the vary principles does not attract in the case in hand.
24. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merits in the present petition, the petition being bereft of merit, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
25. I.A. No.8790/2015, an application for stay of the proceedings pending before the trial Court also stands closed accordingly.
(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE