Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tousif Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.1941/2013
1
JABALPUR : 22/03/2018
Shri Imtiaz Hussain, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, P.L. for the respondent/State.
None for the respondent no.2 though served.
With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard.
This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashment of Criminal Case No.89/2013 pending before J.M.F.C.
Balaghat.
Facts giving rise to this petition, briefly stated, are that the
marriage of applicant Tousif Khan was solemnized with respondent no.2
Ruhina Khan (now no more) on 28.1.2012 and respondents no.2 to 8 are
close relatives of applicant no.1 Tousif Khan. Deceased Ruhina Khan
lodged an FIR against the applicants on 17.10.2012 at Police Station
Kirnapur, District Balaghat, which was registered vide Crime
No.145/2012 for offences punishable under sections 498-A read with
section 34 of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
alleging inter alia that only after three days of marriage, i.e. on 1.2.2012
all the applicants abused her in connection with demand of dowry and
beaten her and her husband applicant no.1 snatched away his mobile in
order to prevent her talking with her parents and thereafter consistently
demanded Rs.5 lacs and a car and threatened her to kill either by
administering poison or by burning her by pouring kerosene oil on her. It
is further alleged that on 29.2.2012 she came to her parental house where
on 6.3.2012 applicant no.1 and other applicants came and the applicant
no.1 again beaten her and asked to compel her father to give Rs.5 Lacs. At
that time, her father gave Rs.1.6 Lacs to the applicant no.1. Thereafter,
the applicants constantly demanded Rs.10 Lacs and for that he harassed
and tortured her. On 25.7.2012 she was sent to her parents' house with a
threat that if their demand is not fulfilled, the applicant no.1 will give
divorce to her. Since then she was residing at her parental house.
The police after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet
against the applicants before J.M.F.C. Balaghat. The learned J.M.F.C.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.1941/2013
2
Balaghat took cognizance of the offences against all the applicants and
registered criminal case no.89/2013 against them. The said proceedings
are going on, which have been challenged by the applicants on the ground
that the applicants have never demanded dowry or harassed deceased
Ruhina. The behavior of Ruhina Khan in the matrimonial house was very
abnormal and disturbing. Therefore, she was divorced in accordance with
the Muslim law on 5.10.2012. The Talaqnama is annexure P/8.
Thereafter, as a counter blast against the applicant no.1 husband and his
other relatives a false report has been lodged with a view to take revenge
while there is no specific allegation against all the applicants with regard
to demand of dowry and harassment. Hence, prayer is made to quash the
entire criminal proceedings.
Having perused the FIR and other material available with the
charge-sheet, so far as applicant no.1 is concerned, in the considered
opinion of this Court there is specific allegation of demand of dowry,
torture and harassment given by him to his wife deceased Ruhina Khan in
connection with demand of dowry. But, so far as applicants no.2 to 8 are
concerned, there is no specific allegation of harassment and torture with
regard to demand of dowry. Prima facie it appears that they have been
implicated because they are close relatives of the applicant no.1 with a
view to take revenge on the basis of vague and omnibus statement.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma & another vs.
Monica [(2009) 10 SCC 604] in which the Apex Court considering the
judgment of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of
India [(2005) 6 SCC 281] held as under :-
"10. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was introduced is amply
reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the
Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly stated
therein the increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of se-
rious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by
the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the
relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of
the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction in-
volving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.1941/2013
3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'CrPC') and the Evidence
Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths
but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws
and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry
death and cruelty.
...............
...............
19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to pre- vent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the pro- vision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to un- scrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harass- ment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the ob- ject is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is in- tended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin's weapon. If the cry of 'wolf' is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual 'wolf' appears. There is no ques- tion of the investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the mat- ters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and gener- alised a statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of a watchdog and not of a blood- hound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious alle- gations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evi- dence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evi- dence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
Further the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667] held that:-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.1941/2013 4
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these com-
plaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of se- rious concern.
Hon'ble the Apex court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and an- other vs. Stae of Uttar Pradesh [(2012)10 SCC 741] has held that :-
20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dis- pute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
Hon'ble the Apex court in the recent judgment, Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U.P. And anr., passed in criminal appeal no. 1265/2017 dated 27.7.2017 as observed in para 14, as under :-
"14. €Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression "cruelty"
in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement".
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.1941/2013 5 Considering the aforesaid enunciation of law and the facts of the case, in view of this court, so far as proceedings against applicants no.2 to 9 are concerned, the same deserves to be quashed. So far as applicant no.1 is concerned, prima facie case for the alleged offence is made out against him. Hence, invoking powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a view to secure the ends of justice and to prevent misuse of the process of the Court this petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against applicants no.2 to 9 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A/34 I.P.C. read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in criminal case no. No.89/2013 pending before J.M.F.C. Balaghat, is hereby quashed and they are discharge from the aforesaid charges. However, the proceedings in No.89/2013 pending before J.M.F.C. Balaghat, against applicant no.1 shall go on.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerning court for information and compliance.
(J.P.Gupta) Digitally signed by Judge HS SARAF HEMANT Date: 2018.04.06 18:59:35 +05'30'