Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Arti @ Madhvi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-6747-2016
(SMT. ARTI @ MADHVI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated : 22-01-2018
Shri A.R.Shivhare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dilip Singh Tomar, learned Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1/State.
Shri R.K.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
sh Petitioners, who are the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of e the respondent No.2/complainant - Smt. Priyanka have filed this ad petition seeking quashment of the FIR, registering Crime Pr No.637/2015 registered under Sections 498A, 294, 506 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station a Kotwali, District Bhind and further proceeding of Criminal Case hy No.2400604/16 pending in the court of learned JMFC Bhind, on ad the ground that admittedly the petitioners are living at Kanpur and M the marriage of the complainant had taken place as per Hindu rituals with Saurabh Dixit R/o Itawa. They have filed of documentary evidence to support their usual place of residence at rt Kanpur Dehat and submits that omnibus allegations have been ou made against the petitioners and they have been falsely implicated C in the case and therefore, prays for quashing of the FIR and h consequential proceedings. ig Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on H the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy Vs. State of West Bengal as reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693, wherein the ratio of the law is that mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. Omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, court has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named members. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another as reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another as reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 to buttress his claim that petitioners have been unnecessarily roped in and are being harassed, whereas they have nothing to do with the allegations of demand of dowry.
Shri Shivhare has drawn attention of this court to the sh statement made by the complainant Priyanka Dixit, in which she has also admitted that petitioners never stayed with her e ad permanently. She has not given any details of their stay with her and further submits that since the husband of the complainant has Pr filed a divorce case, therefore, she has unnecessarily roped in the a petitioners.
hy Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention ad of this court to para 9 of the decision rendered by coordinate M Bench of this court in the case of Ravikant Dubey and others Vs. State of M.P. and another as reported in 2014 (2) M.P.H.T. of 449, wherein the ratio is that inherent powers can be used at any rt stage to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to ou secure the ends of justice.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and prayed C for its dismissal.
h ig Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has H vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that no benefit of doubt can be given to the petitioners at this time, inasmuch as there are specific allegations in regard to their involvement pertaining to harassment for want of dowry, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present petition.
Recently, in the case of Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. as reported in AIR 2017 SC 3869, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with this aspect and has quoted report of the National Crime Report Bureau in 2005, according to which a total 58,319 cases reported under Section 498-A IPC, a total of 1,27,560 people were arrested and 6,141 cases were declared false on account of mistake of fact or law. Similarly, the court observed that the rate of filing of charge sheet was 93.6% in the year 2012 in such cases but the conviction was at a staggering low at 14.4% only. The report stated that as many as 3,72,706 cases were pending trial of which 3,17,000 were projected to be acquitted. In para 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the areas which require remedial steps and in para 19 has issued directions but has sh clarified that the directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death. In the present case, e ad there is no allegation of tangible physical injuries or death being caused and therefore, looking to the omnibus allegations made by Pr the complainant to the effect she is not aware as to what is the a occupation of the petitioners No.1 and 2 and the allegation in the hy FIR that on demand of Rs.5 lac and one house she was being ad harassed, there are no direct allegation against the petitioners M connecting them with any demand of dowry etc. Thus, in the light of the law laid down in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) after of scrutinizing the allegations and circumspection, this court is of the rt opinion that in fact, it is a case of dispute between husband and ou wife originating out of the allegations of wife that the respondent Saurabh Dixit has relation with a third woman and that is the root C of the marital discord. In view of this face, since there is no h ig evidence to connect petitioners, I hold that allegations are H omnibus and vague and respondent No.2 has not attributed any specific role to the petitioner in relation to the alleged dowry related cruelty and the statements in the FIR and the case diary are not sufficient to frame the charges against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 294, 506 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This FIR and the consequential proceedings deserves to be quashed and are quashed. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court of JMFC for information and necessary compliance.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE SANJEEV Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, KUMAR 2.5.4.20=b127bc1c16d2794cb53e7637ddf59 a1c3bd3662e8c5de5d5505a6b3e4d77be89, 2.5.4.45=0321009FFE813C9581B6F5694F843 PHANSE 759E99F2752C38621A39C94CA45FC830FF0F 028B5, cn=SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Date: 2018.01.29 18:01:07 +05'30' SP e sh ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H