Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Meena Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021
Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another
Gwalior, Dated:07/03/2022
Shri H.K. Shukla, Advocate for applicants.
Shri C.P. Singh, Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1/State.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.52/2021 registered at Police Station Seondha, District Datia for offence under Sections 323, 498-A, 506/34 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to point out certain disturbing facts. On 7/2/2022, the counsel for the applicants had made a statement that the applicant no.3-Pankaj Soni has expired, therefore, a week's time may be granted to file necessary application for deleting his name. Thereafter, the applicants filed IA No.3180/2022 seeking recall of the order dated 7/2/2022 on the ground that by mistake the counsel for the applicants had made a false statement that applicant no.3-Pankaj Soni has expired, but in fact he is still alive. Since the statement regarding death of applicant no.3 was made by a Lawyer having a considerable long period of standing in the Bar and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that it was a rash and negligent act on the part of the counsel. It was deliberately made most probably in order to seek adjournment. A new method of killing their own client for the purpose of Bench hunting cannot be appreciated and should be avoided. It is hoped and believed that before making any statement regarding the death of a litigant, the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another counsel would make out thorough search and would not make false statement in order to get the matter adjourned.
3. Be that as it may.
4. According to the applicants, the applicant no.1-Smt. Meera Soni is the mother-in-law, whereas applicant no.2-Chhotelal Soni is the father-in-law of the respondent no.2. Applicant no.3-Pankaj Soni is the Jeth and applicant no.4-Smt. Rinki Soni is Jethani of respondent no.2. Applicant no.5-Vikram @ Vicky Soni is Devar of respondent no.2 and applicant no.6-Neeraj Soni is the husband of the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 made a written complaint to the Police Station Seondha, District Datia on the allegation that she got married to applicant no.6-Neeraj Soni on 8/3/2019 as per Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of her marriage, Rs.8,00,000/- in cash, 7 Tola of gold were given and after her marriage, when she went to her matrimonial house, the applicant no.3-Pankaj Soni met with an accident and thereafter, the applicants started alleging that the father of the respondent no.2 has given insufficient dowry and only because of marriage of respondent no.2 with applicant no.6, the accident has taken place and lot of money has been spent for the treatment of the applicant no.3 and, therefore, she should bring money from her parents. When it was replied by respondent no.2 that her father is having a meager salary and he has already given Stridhan in accordance with his financial condition and he has to marry his other 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another daughters also, therefore, he would not be in a position to give any more money, then the applicants started scolding that either she should bring a car or an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and only then she would be allowed to stay in her matrimonial house properly. Accordingly, she informed her parents about the demand made by the applicants. Her younger brother came to her matrimonial house on the festival of Diwali and at that time also, the applicants had demanded Rs.4,00,000/- or a car from her brother and when he specifically replied that they would not be in a position to fulfill the demands of the applicants, then the respondent no.2 was ousted from her matrimonial house alongwith her brother and even her gold and silver ornaments were not given. At the time of ouster, she was pregnant and as her daughter could not get proper treatment, therefore, she is handicapped from birth. At the time of her ouster everybody was alleging that unless and until she brings a car or an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, she should not come back to her matrimonial house, otherwise she would be killed. Even applicant no.1-Smt. Meera Soni had alleged that in case if respondent no.2 gives birth to a girl child, then she would not be allowed to remain in her matrimonial house and the respondent no.2 is residing with her parents in her parental home.
5. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent no.2, the counsel for the applicants has referred to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another application filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and pointed out that on 25/11/2019 also the respondent no.2 had given a written complaint to the police, but in fact the FIR in question is delayed and has been lodged only after the receipt of notice under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further submitted that the allegations are false and thus, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, the counsel for the State has submitted that it is well established principle of law that whenever a complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offence is made, then the police has to register the FIR. The allegations made by the respondent no.2 clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence. Merely because the FIR was lodged after the institution of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act would not be sufficient to quash the FIR as the respondent no.2 must have waited for the things to improve and only when she realized that the applicants have gone to the extent of making allegations, then if she decides to lodge the FIR, then it cannot be said that it is false and is by way of counterblast to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further submitted that so far as the allegations made in application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, the allegations are substantially same.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another
8. So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicants that the FIR in question was lodged belatedly after the institution of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, it was lodged with malafide intention by way of counterblast is concerned, the same is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. provides that if the offence is punishable with maximum sentence of three years, then the period of limitation would be three years. In the present case, the marriage of the applicant no.6 and respondent no.2 took place on 8/3/2019, whereas the FIR was lodged on 12/3/2021. Thus, it is clear that even the FIR was lodged within the period of three years. Thus, none of the allegations made in the FIR can be said to be barred by limitation.
9. Further from the allegations, it is clear that a married women has been compelled to live in her parental home on account of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry. This conduct would also amount to cruelty. The Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of UP and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 has held as under:-
14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under Section 498-A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "the intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment;
outrage (abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)". Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another go back to the same home for fear of being ill-
treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression "cruelty" appearing in Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatise the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress caused by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place.
15. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The definition of "domestic violence" in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanations
(a) & (b) to Section 498-A of the Penal Code which define "cruelty". The provisions contained in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompass both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home e though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 CrPC which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised.
10. Thus, it is clear that cruelty against the respondent No.2 is a continuous one.
11. Until and unless the allegations are barred by limitation, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the allegations were levelled belatedly. Furthermore, it is a matter of common knowledge that nobody would immediately rush to the police station for lodging the FIR against ill-treatment by her in-laws for the simple reason that no lady would like to spoil her married life and would wait for the behaviour of her in-laws to improve. In absence of any statutory bar with regard to the limitation and even otherwise, this Court cannot quash the proceedings merely on the ground that the allegations were made belatedly, the ground of delay is rejected.
12. So far as the question of filing of FIR by way of counterblast is concerned, the said argument cannot be accepted for the simple 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another reason that the findings recorded by the Civil Court are not binding on the Criminal Court.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of W.B. and others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 555 has held as under:-
"15. We have already noticed that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. Whereas in civil proceedings the matter can be decided on the basis of probabilities, the criminal case has to be decided by adopting the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt". A Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with similar circumstances, in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [AIR 1954 SC 397 : 1954 Cri LJ 1019] held that where civil and criminal cases are pending, precedence shall be given to criminal proceedings. Detailing the reasons for the conclusions, the Court held: (AIR p. 399, paras 15-16) "15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure;9
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.
This however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished."
17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings." The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held as under:-
"14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived at by the High Court while quashing the FIR, it is apparent that the High Court had relied on extraneous considerations and acted beyond the allegations made in the FIR for quashing the same in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. We have already noted the illustrations enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case and from a careful reading of these illustrations, we are of the view that the allegations emerging from the FIR are not covered 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another by any of the illustrations as noted hereinabove. For example, we may take up one of the findings of the High Court as noted herein above. The High Court has drawn an adverse inference on account of the FIR being lodged on 31st December, 2001 while the appellant was forced out of the matrimonial home on 25th May, 2001.
15. In our view, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant- wife for lodging the FIR on 31st December, 2001 on the ground that she had left the matrimonial home atleast six months before that. This is because, in our view, the High Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant and her family members were, during this period, making all possible efforts to enter into a settlement so that the respondent No.2-husband would take her back to the matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during this period, there was every possibility of not entering into any settlement with the respondent No.2-husband.
16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and the respondent No.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."
14. Even otherwise, if a lady had decided not to lodge the FIR under the hope and belief that with passage of time the behaviour of 11 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another her in-laws would improve, then it would only indicate that she was interested in saving her married life. Even if the applicant no.6 has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, still he is required to prove that his or the behaviour of his family members was not cruel towards respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 is residing separately without any reasonable reason.
15. Be that whatever it may.
16. Since the findings which will be recorded in the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act will not be binding on the Criminal Court, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed by holding that it was lodged by way of counterblast to the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
17. So far as the allegations made in the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, this Court has gone through the said application and has found that the basic allegations of cruelty are there. Even otherwise, while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court cannot go to the extent of comparing the contents of the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. with the contents of the FIR.
18. 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 12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22116/2021 Smt. Meera Soni and others Vs. State of M.P. and another the case of Kunwar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-
"8.........At this stage, the High Court ought 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 limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under 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..........."
19. In view of the specific allegations made against the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting quashment of FIR against any of the applicants.
20. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.03.10 14:20:35 +05'30'