Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
MCRC 26450/2020
Sunil Prajapati vs. State of MP
Gwalior, Dated :11/08/2020
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anoop Nigam, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
Heard finally through Video Conferencing.
Case Diary is available.
This first application under Section 439 of CrPC has been filed for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 25/07/2020 in connection with Crime No.213/2020 registered at Police Station Inderganj, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 377 of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the marriage of the applicant took place with the complainant in the year 2011 and after the marriage itself, she started quarreling with the applicant as well as his family members. About eight years back, the father of the applicant had separated the family of the applicant after giving some property and accordingly, a news was also published in the newspaper on 23rd February, 2020. Since the complainant was of the view that a less property has been given to her, therefore, she was constantly fighting with her father-in-law. In the month of May, 2020, the complainant had also beaten the daughter of the co-accused Dharmendra and accordingly, FIR was also lodged. When this conduct of the complainant was objected by the applicant, then the complainant THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 MCRC 26450/2020 Sunil Prajapati vs. State of MP threatened that she wants a divorce as well as an amount of Rs.25 lacs by way of permanent alimony, otherwise she would ensure that everybody in the family of the applicant is sent to jail. It is further submitted that since the conduct of the complainant did not improve, therefore, several complaints were made by the applicant and his family members to the police. On 22/07/2020, the brothers of the complainant came to the house and started quarreling and abusing the family members of the applicant. When the conduct of the brothers of the complainant was objected, then they tried to outrage the modesty of the daughter of the brother of the applicant. When an attempt was made to lodge the report, then the police refused to lodge the report. On the same day, the complainant went back along with her brothers and extended a threat that she would lodge a false FIR. On 24/07/2020, she came back to Gwalior from Agra and lodged a report. It is submitted that in fact, it was the complainant who was creating all sorts of nuisance in the family of the applicant and false allegations have been made. It is further submitted by Shri Bahirani that on 25/02/2020, the applicant had also filed a divorce petition and only after receiving the notice of the same, this false report has been lodged.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that according to the FIR which was lodged on 24 th July, 2020, in the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 MCRC 26450/2020 Sunil Prajapati vs. State of MP month of March, 2016, the elder brother of the applicant committed rape on the prosecutrix in the absence of the family members and the applicant and when the complainant made a complaint to the applicant and her in-laws, then they extended a threat that since the elder brother of the applicant is the leader of the family, therefore, she has to act according to the wishes of her elder brother in law (Jeth). It is also mentioned in the FIR that thereafter, the complainant was raped by her elder brother in law (Jeth) Dharmendra on several occasions and whenever it was told to the applicant, then the applicant also committed unnatural sex with her. Ultimately, she informed her parents and accordingly, she was taken back to her parental home by her brothers Suresh Prajapati and Nirmal Prajapati and on 24/07/2020, she lodged the report. It is further submitted that the allegations are serious in nature as the applicant, in stead of saving his wife, also assisted his brother and also allegedly committed unnatural sex with the complainant. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that so far as the institution of a petition for divorce is concerned, it clearly shows from the contents of the divorce petition that serious allegations of adultery have been leveled by the applicant against his wife. Thus, it appears that the relations have gone beyond repairs and the applicant has made serious allegations against the complainant including her character assassination.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4MCRC 26450/2020
Sunil Prajapati vs. State of MP Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held as under:-
16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and Respondent 2 husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
That apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a civil court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise out of the same set of facts. Such being the position, we are, therefore, of the view that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by relying on extraneous considerations.
Merely because the FIR was lodged after institution of divorce petition, would not be sufficient to disbelieve the allegations. On the contrary, it appears that the Divorce Petition was filed, while the complainant was staying in her matrimonial house and serious allegations of character assassination of the complainant were also made, and only after realizing that there is no possibility of improvement of her married life, it appears the complainant was forced to lodge the FIR about the misdeeds of her in-laws.
Considering the serious nature of allegations, this Court is of the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 MCRC 26450/2020 Sunil Prajapati vs. State of MP considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. The application fails and is hereby rejected.
(G.S.Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDR Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH A KUMAR COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9 BARIK e3451ee450d883083a8e4cc8020eee6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2020.08.13 11:16:40 +05'30'