Madhya Pradesh High Court
Seema Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mcrc. 5459/19
(Seema Gupta Vs. State of M.P. )
Gwalior Dt. 13/2/2019
Shri J.S.Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.S.Rajput, Public Prosecutor for the State.
1.The rejection of an application u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecutrix in a trial alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 498-A and 323 IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior as Criminal Case No. 16079/2014 has impelled the prosecutrix to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite ample evidence of both sisters-in-law Jaya and Sheh Kirti coming on record in shape of testimony of the prosecutrix, PW-1 partially recorded on 5/10/2015 and 9/1/2019, the trial court has erred in law in rejecting the application u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. for arraying the said two sisters-in- law as accused in the trial.
2.1 The aforesaid both sisters-in-law were not arraigned as accused in the FIR bearing Crime No. 481/14 registered on 5/8/2014 at Police Station Madhoganj, District Gwalior alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 498-A and 323 IPC. Further, in the charge-sheet filed subsequently the said two sisters-in-aw were again not arraigned as accused.
2.2 The testimony of the prosecutrix was recorded before the trial 2 court vide P/3 inter alia disclosing the following allegations against the said two sisters-in-law which are extracted below:-
^^ 1- llqjky esa esjs ifr] lkl jkuh vkSj uun t;k FkhA 2- 'kknh ds le; gh jkr esa Vhdk ds fnu esjh uun t;k] Lusg dhfrZ rhuks us dgk fd rqe yksxksa us lkeku de fn;k gS rqe rks dg jgh Fkh dh lkeku cgqr feysxkA 3- esjh lkl vkSj uunksa us fonk ds fnu gh dgk fd tsoj mrkj dj gesa ns nks rks eSus ugh fn;k rks esjh lkl] uunksa us [kqn gh tsoj mrkj fy;kA 4- uun t;k us Hkh esjh ekjihV dh vkSj dg jgs Fks fd ,d yk[k :i;s vius ?kj ls ysdj D;ks ugh vkbZ gSA vkSj dgk fd ,d yk[k :i;k ysdj ugh vkbZ gS blfy;s bls tku ls ekj nsA 5- eSus rhuksa vkjksihx.k ds fo:} fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ Fkh ysfdu iqfyl us uun t;k ds fo:} fjiksVZ ugha fy[kh FkhA ^^ 2.3 On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the application u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecutrix which has suffered dismissal by the impugned order at the hands of the trial court, 3 bringing the prosecutrix to this court in this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and having perused the allegations contained in the testimony of prosecutrix PW-1, it is evident that the allegations against both sisters-in-law are omnibus in nature and lacking in details regarding time, date and nature of the cruelty extended by the sisters-in-law. It appears that name of the sisters-in-law has been revealed by the prosecutrix to implead them merely because they are members of the family of the main accused, i.e., husband and mother-in-law (Surendra and Rani Gupta, respectively).
3.1 The Apex Court in Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009)14 SCC 466 while explaining the sweep and ambit of the expression "cruelty" in terms of Sec. 498-A IPC has held thus-
"In order to understand the meaning of the expression 'cruelty' as envisaged under Section 498-A, there must be such a conduct on the part of the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman which is of such a nature as to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physic of the woman".
3.2 In regard to the allegations being non-specific, this Court in the case of Raju alias Nagendra Singh Chauhan & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr and Smt Savita & Anr. Vs. the State of M.P. decided on 24.11.2017 in M.Cr.C. No. 4325/2017 and M.Cr.C. No. 7317/2017 has held thus:
4
10. After introduction of above said section 498-A of IPC in the statue books, the wives were protected against the matrimonial cruelty to a considerable extent. However, as time passed and the social fabric of the society advanced andchanged from a conservative to more individualistic and commercial character, the instances of misuse of section 498-
AofIPC emerged where the said provision also started to be used an arm twisting tactics against the husband and his relatives by the wife and her parents. The said change in the social set up brought to the fore cases of attempts by the disgruntled women to camouflage themselves as prosecutrix and use the provision of section 498-A IPC as a weapon to wreck vengeance against her husband and his relatives. This change in the attitude of the victim was noticed by the Apex Court in one of it's recent decisions in the case of Monju Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 340. The relevant portion of which is reproduced below:-
"8. While we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the courts below that the deceased was subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that possibility of naming all the family members by way of exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj, thisCourt observed :
"5.........A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case." The Court has, thus, to be careful in 5 summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role."
3.3 Moreover, the nature and intensity of evidence required for successfully invoking Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. is more than what it is required for framing of charge. In other words the implicative evidence thus should reflect more than strong suspicion against the proposed accused who is sought to be arraigned as an accused by invoking Sec. 319 Cr.P.C.
4. In view of the non-specific and omnibus allegations against the sisters-in-law, this court finds no jurisdictional error or illegality/ impropriety in the order of the learned trial court which is accordingly upheld.
5. Accordingly finding no case for interference, the instant petition stands rejected.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge (Bu) DHANAN Digitally signed by DHANANJAYA BUCHAKE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, JAYA 2.5.4.20=d94ba0c97d32b052dc2b2953e5 0aa2259fffca02f0df64f6e380887af9a7647 1, 2.5.4.45=03210001789E00741B6821B476 BUCHAKE 8B566B4765F459D8C46A18A92D65787E 324985807413, cn=DHANANJAYA BUCHAKE Date: 2019.02.18 10:47:18 +05'30'