Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2017
MCRC-5793-2015
(NARENDRA PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
20-07-2017
Shri Uday Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Dilip Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 11/02/2015 passed by the First ASJ, Satna in Cr.R. No.280/2014, wherein order dated 27/10/2014 passed by the JMFC, Satna in Cr.R. No.3286/2012 has been affirmed.
Brief facts just necessary for the disposal of this petition are that, the petitioners/accused persons facing trial in criminal case No.3286/2012 pending before JMFC, Satna for offences under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the complaint filed by respondent No.2/Smt. Meena.
The factual matrix in brief is that, respondent No.2/Meena was married to petitioner No.1/Narendra Patel in the year 2001. After the Gauna ceremony was performed, she came to reside with the petitioners in the matrimonial home. She alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of a four wheeler vehicle and cash of Rs.3,00,000/-. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and charges have been framed on 27/10/2014.
The said order was challenged before the learned First ASJ. Learned ASJ has affirmed the order.
The grievance of the petitioners are that, the complainant was living peacefully in her matrimonial house. After 12 years, she willingly left the house of the petitioner and lodged the false FIR.
It is also contended that the learned trial Court and Revisional Court wrongly disbelieved the statements and evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners which is erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. It is also contended that name of Rakesh Kumar Patel/petitioner No.7 and his wife Vidya Patel/petitioner No.2 have been falsely implicated. Rakesh Kumar is serving in army and living with his family at Ambala, Chandigarh. The complainant has lodged the FIR after the notice of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act received by her. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition for divorce was dismissed on 19/09/2013. It is also contended that the respondent No.2 lodged the report against the petitioners and others with regard to the cruelty and harassment meted by her in the hands of the petitioners.
The respondent has placed reliance on State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi reported as AIR 2005 SC 356, in which it has been held that, ''at the time of framing of charge, the defence of the accused is not relevant. The production of documents at that stage to show his innocence cannot be invoked".
It is apt to say that the case of Devendra Nath Padhi (supra) is in relation to offence of general nature. The present case is related to matrimonial dispute. Otherwise also, the copies of the certified copies of documents related to Hindu Marriage Act 03/12 pending in the Court of ASJ, therefore, judicial notice can be taken.
Learned counsel for the respondent also relied on Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI reported as (2008) 10 SCC 109, in which it has been held that, once the charges have framed, the Magistrate has no power under the Code to discharge the accused, he can either convict or acquit the accused. The material produced on behalf of the accused cannot be considered at the time of framing of charge. At this stage, the submission on behalf of the petitioners have to be confined only to the extent on material produced by the prosecution agency.
It is not disputed that the petitioner No.1/husband has filed a civil suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The complainant has lodged the FIR on 13/04/2012 at Mahila Thana, Satna.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Kallu Khan Vs. State of M.P. reported as ILR 2013 MP 2038, in which it has been held that, "A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 0f 1974), Section 482- Quashing of criminal case- Allegations so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same- Prima facie have no ring of truth and appear to have been made with a view to harass the petitioners- Continuance of the criminal trial against the petitioners would be sheet abuse of process of law."
"B. Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 498-A- Cruelty- Complainant was married to Imran on 17.12.2003- In F.I.R. lodged on 18.09.2012, it is alleged that soon after marriage she was being subjected to harassment and cruelty due to non fulfillment of their demand- No whisper by complainant that why she kept mum till lodging of F.I.R.- No complaints were ever made to even near relatives or Panchayat- Allegations of demand of dowry, harassment & beating are inherently improbable- Criminal proceeding quashed."
Though, marriage was performed in the year 2001, the complainant had gone to the matrimonial home after marriage at the initial stage before the allegation that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. The ratio of Kallu Khan's case (supra) cannot be applied in the present case. In Kallu Khan's case (supra), judgment has been rendered after adducing the complete evidence.
In the above circumstances, it would be appropriate to hold that the petitioners No.2 & 7 who are not living at the village but living at Ambala, therefore, commission of offence by the petitioners No.2 & 7 are inherently improbable and, therefore, the petition is allowed to that extent only.
Therefore, the petition is partly allowed, with regard to petitioners No.2 & 7 and dismissed so far as, the other petitioners No.1 and 3 to 6 are concerned.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE RS