Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Ahirwar vs Priya Ahirwar on 11 October, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.22777/2017
(Suresh Ahirwar and others vs. Priya Ahirwar)
Jabalpur, dated 11.10.2018
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Jasneet Singh Hora, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent.
1. The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the criminal complaint dated 01.05.2017 filed by respondent under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity 'PWDV Act, 2005') pending before learned J.M.F.C., Bhopal registered as MJC R No.5801070/2017 and consequent order dated 22.05.2017, whereby learned J.M.F.C. has taken cognizance of offences against the petitioners.
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that, marriage of the petitioner no.1 - Suresh Ahirwar was performed with respondent/complainant on 13.05.2014. Petitioner No.2 - Govind Das Ahirwar is the father-in-law, petitioner No.3 -
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Savitri Bai Ahirwar is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.4 - Mahendra Ahirwar is the elder brother of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.5 - Babli Ahirwar is the wife of the elder brother Mahendra Ahirwar, petitioner No.6 - Munnilal Ahirwar is the father of Babli, petitioner No.7 - Prakash Ahirwar is the brother of Babli, petitioner No.8 - Rajkumari Ahirwar is the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of Babli, petitioner No.9
- Indu Ahirwar is the sister of Babli, petitioner No.10 - Devilal Ahirwar is the father of Petitioner No.3 - Savitri Bai (Nana Sasur of the complainant), petitioner No.11 - Yogendra Kumar @ Yogi Ahirwar is brother of Petitioner No.3 - Savitri Bai (Mama Sasur of the complainant) and petitioner No.12- Kallu Ahirwar is cousin of petitioner No.1 (son of chacha Sasur of the complainant).
3. At the time of marriage negotiation, the accused persons/members of joint Hindu family demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lakhs only) for purchase of a four wheeler vehicle. The complainant/respondent - Priya Ahirwar observed all Hindu rites and started her family life living with the petitioners. She respected all the family members and complied with the requirement of a bahu. In HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH contrast the accused persons, who are greedy and cruel demanded Rs.10,00,000/-. Somehow the parents of complainant managed to give the same for purchasing of the four wheeler vehicle. In the name of petitioner No.2 - Govind Das Ahirwar, a Scorpio vehicle was purchased. Parents of complainant spent about Rs.35,00,000/- in the marriage, including Rs.10,00,000/- for the purchase of vehicle. The marriage was performed at Hotel of Dipali Residency, Makroniya, Sagar. The expenses of the hotel was Rs.3,00,000/-. Cash of Rs.5,51,000/- was given to the accused persons, besides the gold and silver ornaments, clothes, utensils, furnitures, cot, bed, sofa-set, freeze, cooler, washing machine, godrej almirah, microwave, mixer grinder, LCD TV, gas-stove, etc. valued Rs.20,00,000/-. These are the items of Stridhan, which the accused persons kept with them and did not give to the complainant.
4. After the marriage the accused persons taunted the complainant that, if the marriage of petitioner no.1 - Suresh Ahirwar could have been performed with one else, at list Rs.50,00,000/- cash could have been received. They also called the parents of the complainant as Bhukhe, Nange HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH and belonged to Kangal Khandan. The complainant though insulted, but did not respond. Accused/petitioner no.1 - Suresh Ahirwar having consumed liquor treated the complainant with cruelty, mentally and physically, and also repeatedly harassed her. She was caught by her hair and dragged from the kitchen to the drawing room and deliberately opening the LPG gas threatened to kill her. When the complainant was sleeping in the night, petitioner no.1-Suresh Ahirwar thrown chilled water from the fridge on her face. Petitioner No.1-Suresh Ahirwar used to urinate in the bed and asked the complainant to sleep on it. The complainant was treated badly with cruelty. He also used to spit on her clothes, on her face and on her food, even in her drinking water. He also used to scold her with filthy languages.
5. On 01.08.2015 at about 11-12 pm, the complainant was beaten badly by petitioner No.1, therefore, she sustained injuries on her head and hands. She had the feeling that she could be killed on that night. The complainant used to inform her parents about the ill- treatment and maltreatment. A report was lodged at Civil HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Lines Police Station. A.S.I. of police line came to the house of the petitioner no.1 and warned Petitioner No.1 to behave properly and not to harass the complainant; otherwise legal action will be initiated. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 used to abuse the complainant with obscene words. The complainant was also not given food and was confined in a room, neither she was allowed to communicate with her maternal family members. Her "stridhan" has been kept by petitioner nos.2 and 3.
6. On 15.12.2015, the complainant was taken to Bhopal by the petitioner no.1 -Suresh Ahirwar and kept at room No.204 of Hotel Rewa in M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. He insisted the complainant to ask her parents to give Rs.18,00,000/- down payments for purchase of a duplex at Bhopal. She was ill- treated and abused by filthy language and kept in the hotel as a hostage for two-three days. Having found an opportunity, she communicated to her parents. Her parents informed the incident to M.P. Nagar Police Station, Bhopal. Police came to the Hotel and warned the petitioner No.1
-Suresh Ahirwar and the complainant was sent with her father to her maternal home.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
7. Petitioner No.1 went to the house of father of the complainant, and threatened him and abused him by filthy language on report was lodged at M.P. Nagar, Bhopal on 20.12.2015. Petitioner No.1 - Suresh Ahirwar and his family members repented and promised to keep the complainant properly, but because the demand of dowry was not fulfilled the petitioner No.1 and his family members again ill-treated the complainant and harassed her during the period of March, June and August, 2016.
8. On 25.08.2016 before the Family Conciliation Centre, Satna the complainant, her parents and her brother attended for reconciliation. Petitioner no.1 came there, abused them by filthy language and also assaulted the complainant. On 25.08.2016, the complainant's mangalsutra was stanched and she was thrown out of her matrimonial home only with the clothe she was wearing, saying that until unless the demand of Rs.50,00,000/- is not fulfilled, she will be dealt to death and petitioner No.1 - Suresh Ahirwar will perform another marriage. Because of this domestic violence, abuses, beating and cruel behavior the complainant was mentally and physically harassed.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Petitioner nos.1 to 5 kept the "stridhan" and did not return her ornaments and thrown her out of the house.
9. The petitioner no.9 - sister of petitioner No.5, petitioner no.7 instigated the petitioners with the modus operandi to get the marriage of petitioner No.1 performed with petitioner no.9. Petitioner no.1 was also interested to get marry with petitioner No.9. Petitioner no.6 and petitioner no.7 also consented to this proposal. Petitioner No.1 constantly harassed the complainant. Petitioner No.6 the father of the petitioner No.5 was quarreling during the marriage under the influence of alcohol. Because of his misdemeanor certain guests including Devdayal and Yogendra @ Yogi Ahirwar left the marriage function.
10. When a joint meeting was held on 04.01.2015, petitioner No.10 - Devi Dayal the Nana Saur (father of petitioner No.3 Savitri Bai) came there and instigated the petitioners, which resulted the failure of the negotiation talks. Petitioner no.10 did so with intention to goad the petitioner no.1 - Suresh Ahirwar to leave the complainant. Petitioner No.11 - Yogendra brother of petitioner No.3 - Savitri Bai (Mama Sasur) was 'taunting' always to the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH complainant. Petitioner No.1 is serving as a Sub Divisional Officer Forest and earning Rs.60,000/- per month besides the father of petitioner no.1 earning Rs.50,000/- per month from agriculture. The petitioners have 16 acres of irrigated land, from which they are earning Rs.3-4 lakhs per year.
11. Stating that, cause of action arose on 25.08.2016, when the petitioner no.1 ill-treated, abused by obscene words and beaten, her "stridhan" was snatched, the complainant was thrown away from her matrimonial home, she requested to take appropriate action against the petitioners under the PWDV Act, 2005 and pleaded for protection and house rent of Rs.10,000/- per month, Rs.30,000/- as maintenance per month from petitioner no.1 or a onetime maintenance of Rs.1 crore with the cost of the articles, ornaments given at the time of marriage valued Rs.30 lakhs plus Rs.10 lakhs given for purchase of four wheeler vehicle and Rs.5,51,000/- cash given at the time of marriage.
12. Learned J.M.F.C. by the impugned order took cognizance of the offence and directed to issue notice to the petitioners. The petitioners preferred this petition under HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the complaint is baseless, concocted and made with ulterior motive. The petitioners claimed that the FIR on 25.08.2016 bearing Crime No.430/2016 for offence under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. was lodged, after the notice was issued in M.Cr.C. No.10153/2017 against the complainant for quashing of the FIR bearing Crime No.193/2017 dated 31.03.2017, as a counter blast for the offence under Sections 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the PWDV Act, 2005 against the petitioners.
13. It is stated that petitioner no.1 was not ready to irrational demand of staying at Bhopal as Gharjamai leaving his aging and ailing parents. The complainant blackmailed and threatened the petitioner to live as per her terms and conditions, failing which she engaged in lodging reports against the petitioners. It is also claimed that without due endurance to the settled principle of law with respect to the investigation and enquiry the cognizance has been taken. The complainant initiated this proceeding as a counterblast to the FIR registered by the petitioners against the family members of the respondent/complainant and also outburst HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH to the divorce proceeding initiated by the petitioner no.1 - Suresh Mehra to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. It is claimed that the petitioners have been maliciously implicated to pressurize the petitioner no.1 - Suresh Ahirwar to withdraw the petition for divorce and the FIR. The efforts made by the Family Conciliation Centre, Satna in December, 2015 went in vain and the respondent and her family members assaulted the petitioner no.1 and pressurized to get their demands fulfilled. Keeping in view above circumstances, the complaint is liable to be quashed.
14. Perused the record.
15. The incidents narrated by the complainant is purely against the petitioner nos.1 to 5 only. Applicant nos.6 to 12 seems to be roped in.
16. The definition of "Domestic Violence" indicates "harms or injuries or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well- being, weather mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security."
17. In this contest, it would be appropriate to consider the definition of "aggrieved person" as has been provided under Section 2(a) of the PWDV Act, 2005, "'Aggrieved persons' means any women who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent."
18. The word of "domestic relationship" has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the PWDV Act, 2005, "'Domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family."
19. Petitioner nos.6 to 12 are not the family members nor they are living together as a joint family. Neither they are joint family. If the entire complaint is considered to be true, even then the applicant nos.6 to 12 do not fall into the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH category of the "family members living together". Therefore, they cannot be treated as "domestic relationship" of the complainant.
20. Much has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners showing different case laws and pleading that the offence under the PWDV Act, 2005 is not made out. But as regarding the petitioner nos.1 to 5, at this stage, the allegations which can only be considered by the Court concerned. At this stage, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court cannot embark upon enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are reliable or not and thereupon to render a definite finding about the truthfulness or the veracity of allegations. These are matters, which are to be examined only by the Court concerned. After the entire material is produced before it on a thorough investigation and evidence is led as regarding the petitioner nos.1 to 5.
21. But so far as the petitioner nos.6 to 12 are concerned effects float on the surface and it seems that no assistance from deus ex machina is required to see that there is not even a scintialla of suspicious of criminal liability as against them. Therefore, it is deemed necessary to interfere and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH quash the proceeding against the petitioner nos.6 to 12 because to allow the proceedings to continue would be great harassment to the petitioner nos.6 to 12.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in the case of R. Kalyani and others vs. Janak C. Mehta reported as (2009) 1 SCC 516 , whereby the Apex Court has held that:-
"So far as allegations in regard to commission of the offence of forgery are concerned, the same had been made only against the respondent No.3 and not against the respondent No.2. The High Court ordinarily would not exercise."
23. Per contra, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in the case of Vineet Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2017) 13 SCC 369, whereas the Apex Court has held that :-
"When the proceedings attended with malafide malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to personal grudge."
24. Quashment of proceeding under Section 482, on the basis of the statement of presecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is justified. Referring to the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported as 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, whereas counsel for the petitioner argued that HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH when the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or when the proceeding is maliciously instituted. It should be quashed.
25. In this regard, reference can also be made to the case of Ashish Dixit and others vs. State of U.P. and another reported as (2013) 4 SCC 176, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that :-
"Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can exercise the inherent powers in respect of the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act to avoid abuse of process of Court where the respondent/complainant apart from arraying her husband and parents-in-law including all and sundry persons as accused, even a tenant whose name was not known to her. The Apex Court observed that the High Court should at least have directed that petition be confined to her husband and parents-in-law and should not have allowed impeadment of the other petitioners. Therefore, the proceeding against the other petitioners has been quashed. The CJM is directed to proceed only against the husband and the parents-in-law.
26. This Court is of the opinion that the respondent- complainant has impleaded the petitioner nos.6 to 12 with ulterior motive and has not assigned any criminal act and they are not in domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(5) of the PWDV Act, 2005.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
27. For the reasons stated above, this petition is partly allowed. Learned trial Court may proceed against the petitioners no.1 to 5. As regarding petitioners no.6 to 12, the order impugned dated 01.05.2017 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Bhopal is set aside and the criminal complaint against the petitioners no.6 to 12 is hereby quashed.
(Sushil Kumar Palo) Judge RJ Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 2018.10.22 11:08:58 +05'30'