Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46678 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SARYU PRASAD GARG S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD
GARG, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE VILLAGE- PIPARIYA, POLICE
STATION AND TEHSIL UCHEHRA, DISTRICT
SATNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. SARITA GARG W/O SHRI SARYU PRASAD
GARG, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE PIPARIYA POLICE
STATION AND TEHSIL UCHEHRA, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NEELESH GARG S/O SHRI SARYU PRASAD GARG,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE PIPARIYA POLICE
STATION AND TEHSIL UCHEHRA, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION NAGOD DISTRICT SATNA M.P
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAGNI MISHRA D/O SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR
MISHRA W/O SHRI YOGESH G, AGED ABOUT 23
YEAR S , R/O VILLAGE CHANDKUIYAN, POLICE
STATION AND TEHSIL NAGOD, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER AND SHRI UDAYNAND
PANDEY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42939 of 2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 3/12/2024
11:15:07 AM
2
BETWEEN:-
YOGESH GARG S/O SHRI SARYU PRASAD GARG, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PANCHAYAT ROJGAR
SAHAYAK R/O VILLAGE PIPARIYA POLICE STATION
AND TEHSIL UCHEHRA DISTRICT SATNA (MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION NAGOD DISTRICT SATNA (MP)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAGINI MISHRA D/O SHRI YOGESH G, AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHANDKUIYAN
POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL NAGOD DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER AND SHRI UDAYNAND
PANDEY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This order shall also govern disposal of M.Cr.C. No.42939/2022. For the sake of convenience, facts of M.Cr.C. No.46678/2022 are being taken note of.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that marriage of prosecutrix and Yogesh Garg (applicant in connected petition i.e M.Cr.C. No.42939/2022) i.e son of applicant No.1 and 2 was solemnized on 22/01/2022. After marriage, the attitude of the complainant was totally indifferent towards her husband and family members of the husband. Resultanlty, on her own volition, she came to her parents house on 18/04/2022. The husband -Yogesh Garg then filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/12/2024 11:15:07 AM 3 13/05/2022. Notice of said proceedings was received by the complainant/wife and she also appeared in the proceedings on 14/07/2022 thereafter with an oblique motive, FIR has been lodged on 26/07/2022.
3. It is contended by the counsel that lodging of FIR is a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and till filing of application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, no report under Section 498A of IPC was lodged against the applicants. It is also contended by the counsel that the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled and no specific act on the part of the each applicants has been detailed in the FIR, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the applicants deserve to be quashed. To support his contention, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Alok Lodhi & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. in M.Cr.C. No.47904/2019, Tarun and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. in M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017 and in the case of Nirbhay Singh Thakur Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in M.Cr.C. No.24421/2023.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the present petitions deserve to he dismissed inasmuch as, in the present case, the complainant was subjected to cruelty at the behest of the applicants, therefore, having found no other alternative, FIR was lodged. It is also contended by the counsel that filing of a divorce petition in a Civil Court cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also contended by the counsel that the criminal as well as civil proceedings are entirely different and independent of each other and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/12/2024 11:15:07 AM 4 therefore, pendency of any civil suit has no bearing on the criminal proceedings. To support his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance in the decision of this Court in the case of Balkrishna Devda and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. in CRR No.2045/2021 and in the case of Smt. Saroj Upadhyay and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. in M.Cr.C. No.34338/2019.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, the FIR against the applicants has been registered on 26/07/2022. The FIR reveal that the complainant approached the Police authorities with an allegation that her marriage was solemnized on 22/01/2022 with Yogesh Garg and at the time of marriage, Rs.10,00,000/- cash, Jewellery and other house hold items were given as dowry. After the marriage, the complainant went to her in-laws place thrice. When the complainant, came to her in-laws place, she was subjected to cruelty at the behest of her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law and they were making demand of dowry. It is further stated in the FIR that the complainant came to her parents house on 18/04/2022 to appear in some examination. Later on, when she went back to her in-laws place, she was denied entry by the present applicants and they also levelled allegations that she did not bring the dowry. The allegations levelled in the FIR and also the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveal that no specific allegations have been levelled against the applicants. There are omnibus, general and bald allegations. The individual overt act on the part of each applicants has not been specified in the FIR nor the statement of any of the witnesses.
8. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid allegations, so levelled by the complainant and other witnesses, there is iota of doubt that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/12/2024 11:15:07 AM 5 allegations are omnibus and general and this aspect of the matter regarding levelling allegations against the family members has been taken into consideration by the Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6SCC 599] in paragraphs 16 and 18 has held as under:
"16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 :
(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that :
(SCC p. 454, para 6) "6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/12/2024 11:15:07 AM 6 general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
9. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan Kausar alias Sonam (Supra), as the allegations against the family members of the husband are omnibus and general thus, in the considered view of this Court the proceedings so far it relates to family members of husband challenged in M.Cr.C. No.46678/2022 stand quashed and the petition stand allowed. The applicants are discharged from the aforesaid charges and their bail bonds, if any, also stand discharged.
10. So far as M.Cr.C No.42939/2022 is concerned, apart from the other allegations, the statements of witnesses Awadhesh Tripathi and Vikas Singh Parihar contain the allegation of giving Rs.10,00,000/-, furniture and other household articles as dowry to the applicant -Yogesh Garg, thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the prosecution, thus the same stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/12/2024 11:15:07 AM