Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Anand Shrivastava And Ors. vs State Of M.P. on 5 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2002)DMC524
ORDER S.L. Kochar, J.
1. This revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused persons against the order of framing of charge dated 12.4.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch in Cr. Case No. 1002/2000 for quashing the charge and ordering discharge of the applicant-accused persons.
2. On a typed complaint dated 19.9.2000 filed by the wife of petitioner No. 1, Dr. Smt. Kalpana Shrivastava as Cr. No. 559/2000 for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered by the Police Station, Neemuch. Later on, the charge-sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 was the husband, petitioner No. 2 Shyam Biharilal was the father-in-law, aged about 73 years, a retired person, petitioner No. 3 Smt. Vimla Devi aged about 68 years was the mother-in-law and petitioner No. 4 Shri Gopal Sharma, a retired person having no relationship with the complainant as well as the petitioners 1 to 3.
3. The allegations levelled by the complainant in the First Information Report were that she was married with the petitioner No. 1 Dr. Anand Shrivastava on 29.5.1985. Just after the marriage, she was ill treated mentally and physically by petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for want of dowry. Their demand was fulfilled twice or thrice by paying 30-35 thousand rupees by her father and brothers to petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. During this period, she had given birth to two sons. Between this period of 15 years, because of ill-treatment twice or thrice, she came to her brothers' house and lived there. On 31.1.1998, she lodged a report at Rajnagar Police Station. Thereafter, her husband petitioner No. 1 submitted written and oral excuse and took her to Kankroli where they were running 'Radhika Hospital'. But there was no improvement in the behaviour of her husband and he continued ill-treating with her.
4. She further alleged that on 16.5.1999, she was turned out of the house after beating to bring money from her brothers for construction of a Nursing Home. A report to this effect was lodged at Police Station, Rajnagar. In the said report, she also made a request for not taking action on her complaint because, she was having belief of improvement in the behaviour of her husband. Thereafter, she lived for about four months with her brother at Neemuch where she and her brothers were getting threats on telephone. She further complained that on 15.9.1999 her husband-petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 Gopal Sharma a "TANTRIK" came to Neemuch and after submitting apology, took her with them. But her husband started beating while going to Kankroli on way and got signed on four/five blank stamp papers. She sent inland letters complaining the fact of ill-treatment by the applicant. On 29.11.1999, she was assaulted by kicks and fists resulting into fracture of nasal-bone. After snatching the list of her Stridhan, a document for movable and immovable property, Educational Certificates, degrees, mark-sheets, Registration Certificate, etc. she was turned out of the house. On the way, she met with one Shri Udaishankar who helped her for bus-fare. She lodged a report of this incident on 30.11.1999 at Neemuch Police Station. There she was medically examined. On this report also, the police did not take any action on her own request because, she was in a hope of change in the attitude and behaviour of her husband.
5. The complainant again filed a complaint on 19.9.2000 because there was no improvement in the behaviour of her husband. In this report, she has levelled allegations against the petitioner No. 4-Gopal Sharma alleging that he will destroy her whole family by playing witchcraft.
6. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The petitioners were released oil bail.
7. The contention of the petitioners is that the complainant has lodged a false report just to pressurize the petitioner No. 1 to settle down at Neemuch where her brothers are residing. The petitioners have filed number of documents, reports lodged by the petitioner No. 1 against the complainant/wife at the Police Station, judgment and decree of divorce passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam dated 18.1.2000 and submitted that by her own saying the complainant was residing with her brothers at Neemtich from 30.11.1999, whereas the First Information Report has been lodged for taking action against the petitioners on 19.9.2000 i.e. after ten months. She is a doctor and procured a false certificate of fracture of her nasal-bone. If this was true, why she did not pursue her report lodged at Neemuch Police Station on 30.11.1999 and as to how the Police also remained silent on this report which was disclosing cognizable offence against the petitioners. This goes to indicate that the police was acting as per and her brothers' desire. The brothers of the complainant are influential persons in Neemuch.
8. The petitioners have also submitted that on 22.2.2000 a Divorce Petition was filed by the complainant. In this petition, she had also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite which was dismissed on 18.7.2000.
9. In this civil suit, the petitioner No. 1 Dr. Anand Shrivastava had also filed counter claim for grant of decree of divorce inter alia on grounds of cruelty and voluntary desertion by the complainant-wife. The complainant had submitted reply to the counter-claim denying the allegation levelled by the petitioner. Learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam formed four issues. On the basis of the evidence and documents available on record, he answered the issues that the appellant-wife was ill-treating the husband-petitioner No. 1 Dr. Anand Shrivastava and was responsible for cruel behaviour. It has also been held by the Civil Court that the wife-complainant was responsible for desertion without any reason for two years of filing of the civil suit, and on this basis granted a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner No. 1. A detailed judgment has been passed by the Civil Court, copy of which has been filed by the petitioner, available on record at page Nos. 26 to 53. This Court has gone through the entire judgment. Initially the civil suit was filed by the complainant-wife and after filing of the counter claim by the petitioner No. 1, the plaintiff/wife submitted reply to the counter claim. Thereafter, she did not appear as a witness in the witness-box and also did not produce any witness in support of her case. Therefore, the learned Civil Court proceeded ex parte. There is no material on record to indicate that this judgment and decree was or is under challenge at the instance of the wife-complainant before any superior Court.
10. It is a settled law that the finding arrived at by the Civil Court is binding upon the Criminal Court.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the aforesaid factual scenario, relying on the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in Dr. V.N. Sharma and Ors. v. State, 1996 Cri. LJ 116, and Mahendra Kumar Mishra v. C.S. Prasad (By this High Court Main Seat at Jabalpur), (2000) 4 M.P. High Court Today 125, submitted that no case for putting the petitioners to trial, is made out and the charge is groundless. Therefore, the petitioners should have been discharged. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General Mr. Desai has submitted that the First Information Report is containing sufficient ingredients for making out a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 498A, 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He further contended that at the stage of framing of charge, appreciation of evidence and roving inquiry is not permissible by the Court. Therefore, the impugned order of framing of charge by the Trial Court is well within the ambit of law.
12. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and having perused the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioners is liable to be accepted by quashing the proceedings.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, IV (1996) CCR 4 (SC)=(1996) 9 SCC 766, has held that the Court is not debarred from looking into any material produced by the accused at the stage of framing of charge. Hearing of accused not confined to oral arguments.
14. The Supreme Court also in the judgments reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, AIR 1972 SC 545, AIR 1990 SC 1962 and (2002) 2 SCC has held that the Judge while considering the issue of framing of charge against the accused persons or discharging them, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not merely required to act as the Post Office or mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider broad probabilities of the case the total effect of evidence and documents produced before the Court and should consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons in the matter or not.
15. Now, this matter is to be tested on an anvil of law of framing of charge as discussed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
16. The First Information Report lodged by the wife after ten months is containing the fact that she had lodged some more reports prior to this report and simultaneously also not pursuing the same. On all these reports the police had also not registered the case against the petitioners. This shows that the wife has lodged the report just to put pressure upon the petitioners to submit to her demands. The petitioner No. 1 has contended specifically before the Civil Court in the divorce matter by filing counter claim and written statement that he had opened the Nursing Home in Kankroli which is nearer to Udaipur where his parents were residing and from Kankroli it was feasible for him to take care and look after his parents because of short distance, whereas the complainant-wife was pressurising him for shifting to Neemuch. All these facts are available in detail in para 3 of the judgment of divorce passed by the Civil Court. In this judgment, the learned Addl. District Judge, while passing a detailed judgment, dismissed the prayer of decree of divorce in favour of the complainant/wife on the ground of cruelty done by the petitioner/ defendant-accused and granted decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner No. 1-husband-accused/defendant in counter claim filed by him on the ground of ill-treatment and cruel behaviour by the wife-complainant.
17. The First Information Report and the statements of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet are not showing specific role played by the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, father, mother and neighbour Gopal Sharma respectively of the petitioner No. 1. As such, the record is containing only general and omnibus statements against these persons. No case is made out against the petitioner No. 4 Gopal Sharma for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, because, he is not the relative of the husband. No case also is made out for framing charge for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code because, there is no allegation against him that at the time of beating given by the husband, he was present and participated directly or indirectly.
18. In the case of Satish Mehra (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the Court is not debarred from looking into any material produced by the accused at the stage of framing of charge. In the present case, the petitioners have filed the copy of the judgment passed by the Civil Court granting decree of divorce on the grounds raised by the petitioner No. 1 before the Civil Court and Civil Court has also dismissed and refused the grounds raised by the complainant-wife about cruel behaviour of the petitioner.
19. Apart from this judgment, the report mentioned in the Roznamcha dated 18.12.1998 and 29.11.1999 lodged by the petitioner No. 1 at Police Station Rajnagar indicates the fact of wife leaving the house of petitioner No. 1 after locking the door from outside without any intimation, the petitioner had opened the lock by another key. These reports are also indicating that the petitioner No. 1 had gone to take his wife and both the sons, but he was misbehaved by the brother-in-law and sister-in law and he was also compelled to sign on some stamp papers. For the sake of his married life and for future of his children he put his signatures on those documents. Even then his wife and children were not sent along with him by his in-laws. He has also expressed his apprehension against them for involving him in a false case and after this report, the wife had lodged the reports at the Police Station and at the same time did not pursue the said reports except the last report on the basis of which the case has been registered. It is not understandable as to how the police was submitting to the desire and suggestion given by the complainant-wife for not taking any action on her report. This shows that she was manipulating the matter with the help of Neemuch police. The petitioner No. 2 Shyam Biharilal is a retired person aged 73 years and petitioner No. 3 is mother-in-law of the complainant aged about 68 years. They are residing at Udaipur, whereas the petitioner No. 1 is residing at Kankroli, District Rajsamand. A citizen who had been indicted for an offence has been put to trial, Cannot be compelled to face a trial which is not warranted by legal provision. None can be punished except by due process of law and the liberty of none can be curtailed without due process of law. Any indulgence in this context cannot be tolerated and cannot be permitted to be continued.
20. In the case of Satish Mehra (supra), in para 15, the Supreme Court has held as under :
"But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. Most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of workload. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings."
21. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis of facts and law involved in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of the Court of Law. Therefore, the same should not be allowed to continue. .
22. As a result of the foregoing discussion, this revision petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are quashed and the petitioners are consequently discharged.