Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Sadiq vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2016
Author: Jarat Kumar Jain
Bench: Jarat Kumar Jain
-:1 :-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH)
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JARAT KUMAR JAIN )
MCRC No. 7052 OF 2014
Mohammad Sadiq S/o Mumtaz Beg & Ors.
VERSUS
State of M.P. & Ors.
******
Ms. Sadhna Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
******
ORDER
(Passed on this day of January, 2016) This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [in brief "the Code"] for quashment of Criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 498-A,323,294 and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act [Criminal Case No. 4894/2014 pending before JMFC, Indore].
[2] Facts giving rise to this petition are that Respondent No.2- Farah Khan was married with petitioner No.1- Sadiq on 12/01/2011. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the parents-in-laws and Sister-in-laws of -:2 :- respondent No.2 respectively. On 24/12/2013 Respondent No.2 submitted a written complaint at Police Station Shajapur, with the allegation that in her matrimonial home at Indore she was harassed by the husband and his family members(petitioners) in connection with demand of dowry. The complaint was sent to Police Aerodrum Indore in whose jurisdiction the alleged offence was committed. On this basis Police Station Aerodrum registered a crime no.5/2014 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 294 of the IPC . After investigation final report has been filed before JMFC Indore against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498-A,323,294 and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petition has been filed on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR are vague,uncertain and false. There is omnibus allegation that the petitioners used to harass the respondent No.2 in connection with demand of dowry. After the marriage respondent No.2 resided with her husband petitioner NO.1 at Indore whereas the petitioner No.2 to 4 are residents of Shujalpur and petitioner No.5 is resident of Shajapur. On the other hand respondent No.2 failed to perform her matrimonial responsibilities and obligations towards her husband, child and in-laws. Thus, on various grounds the petitioners have filed the petition for quashment of criminal proceedings.
-:3 :-[3] Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit that respondent No.2-wife has failed to perform her matrimonial responsibilities and obligations towards her husband, child and in-laws and on 19/11/2012 respondent No.2 in the presence of her parents admitted these facts and in her own writing assured that she will not repeat these mistakes in future. Even though she has not changed her conduct and behavior and subsequently lodged a false report.
[4] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 has also filed an application under protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners on the same allegations, which is pending before JMFC Shajapur. In that case during trial when the respondent No.2 was confronted with her written admissions then she failed to explain in what circumstances she has admitted these facts. Copy of the deposition is filed by the petitioners. This circumstance shows that respondent No.2 has lodged a false report against the petitioners.
[5] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on 19/12/2013 respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial home without any cause and thereafter on 24/12/2013 she has made a written complaint against the petitioners that she was harassed in connection with demand of dowry. This complaint is nothing but a counter blast as before filing of complaint petitioner No.1 has divorced the respondent No.2. In the FIR there is vague and uncertain -:4 :- allegations and on bare perusal of FIR it reveals that she has falsely implicated the in-laws whereas they are residing separately. The proceedings against the petitioners are baseless and mala fide therefore, it be quashed.
[6] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the FIR and other documents it reveals that Respondent No.2 has made a complaint against her in- laws only to harass them. Thus, this is a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. For this purpose placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667] and Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. [(2012) 10 SCC 741].
[7] On the other hand learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State submitted that respondent No.2 immediately lodged the report against the petitioners and there is ample evidence against the petitioners. In such a situation it is not proper to quash the proceedings at initial stage.
[8] Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 adopts the arguments advanced by the learned Govt. Advocate and further submits that in the FIR time and date for demand of dowry is mentioned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations are vague and uncertain. This Court should not appreciate the evidence at this stage. After recording the evidence, trial Court will evaluate the same. Hence, it is not -:5 :- proper at this stage to doubt the contents of FIR and quash the proceedings.
[9] After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.
[10] I would like to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) in which it is held that:-
"24. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Lts. Vs. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque and Anrs. [(2005) 1 SCC 122] observed thus:
" It would be an abuse of process of court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court of quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
25------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
26. We have very carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.
-:6 :---------------------------------------------------------------
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection."
[11] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) held as under:-
" Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Vs. State of T.N. [(2005) 3SCC 507] had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complaint appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge-sheet, none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A,406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the -:7 :- complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. "
[12] Admittedly marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 12/01/2011 and on 23/12/2013 respondent No.2 has left her matrimonial home. On 19/12/2013 petitioner No.1 has divorced the respondent No.2 and on 30/12/2013 in this regard a memorandum has been drawn in presence of two witnesses. On 26/12/2013 petitioner No.1 has submitted an application (Annexure P/5) before SHO Aerodrum, Indore that on 19/12/2013 respondent No.2 alongwith her father came to house of the petitioner No.1 and they have abused him and also threatened to implicate him in the case of demand of dowry and thereafter on 24/12/2013 respondent No.2 made a written complaint against petitioners at Police Station Shajapur which reads as under :
izfr] Jheku Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn;] 'kktkiqj e/;izns'k egksn;] fuosnu gS fd eSa Qjgk [kku 'kktkiqj eksgYyk ykyiqjk dh jguh okyh gWwA esjs firk vCnqy they [kku esjk fookg fetkZ eqerkt csx fuoklh 'kqtkyiqj ds yMds fetkZ lkfnd csx ls yxHkx 3 o"kZ iwoZ bUnkSj esa fd;k Fkk] esjs ifr fetkZ lkfnd csx bUnkSj esa tsV ,;josl esa VsfDudy ,-,e-Vh- ds in ij inLFk gS eS vius fookg ds ckn euqJh uxj NksVk ckaxjnk bUnkSj esa viuh ifr ds lkFk jgrh Fkh] esjs firk us 'kknh esa ngst ds lkFk <kbZ yk[k :i;s] esjs firk ds nksLRk futke 'kh'kxj ds lkeus fn;s Fks] vkSj esjs firk us <sM yk[k :i;s vius th-ih-,Q- ls fudkys vkSj ,d yk[k :i;s] esjs firk ds nksLr futke 'kh'kxj ls fy;s Fks vkSj esjs firk us ngst esa 5 rkSyk lksuk vkSj pkanh ds tSoj ds lkFk bysDVªkfud lkeku vkSj QuhZpj vkfn ngst esa fn;k FkkA esjh 'kknh ds dqN fnuks ckn esjh lkl ulhe ch ,oa esjs llqj eqerkt csx ,oa esjh uuan mtek ch vkSj tqcsfj;k lqYrku eq>s rkus fdlus djus yxh vkSj esjs llqj ds lkFk feydj ngst dh ekax djus yxs fd rsjs cki us oknk fd;k Fkk fd dkj vkSj bUnkSj esa ,d ¶ysV fnyk,asxs tks -:8 :- vktrd ugha fnyk;k vkSj esjs lkFk xkyh&xykSp vkSj ekjihV djus yxs rks eSaus vius firk ls 'kktkiqj vkdj ds dgk fd vkius dkj vkSj ¶ysV dk oknk fd;k Fkk] bl dkj.k ls esjs lkl&lqj vkSj ifr esjs lkFk ekjihV djrs gS] xkyh&xyksp nssrs gS vkSj eq>s ekufld izrkMuk nsrs gSa eq>s Hkq[kk j[kk tkrk gS vkSj ?kj ls ckgj tkrs gS rks ckgj ls rkyk yxkdj pys tkrs gS vkSj eq>s vUnj jksd fn;k tkrk gSA vki esjs ifr dks dkj fnyk fnft, bl rjg esjs firk us esjs ifr fetkZ lkfnd csx dks <kbZ yk[k uxn fn, vkSj ;g dgk fd ckfd iSlk es] eSa yksu ysdj vkidks ns nwaxk bl rjg ls esjs ifr lkl&llqj vkSj nksuks uan~ns eq>s ngst ds fy, izrkfMr djrs jgsA vkSj ?kVuk bl izdkj gS fd fnukad 23@12@2013 dks 'kke 7 cts eq>s esjs lkl&llqj nksuks eq>s ysdj bUnkSj ls 'kktkiqj vkdj esjs ?kj ds lkeus vkVks ls NksMdj pys x;sA vkSj eq>s eka&cgu dh xkfy;k cdh fd vc vxj rq bUnkSj vk;s rks ckdh dkj ds iSls vkSj ¶ysV ds iSls gh vk;s vU;Fkk ge vkSj esjk csVk rq>s tku ls ekj nsaxsA vc rks rq cp x;h gS exj vkxs ugha cpsxhA eSa vius firk ds ?kj vUnj vkbZ vkSj eSaus vius firk dks iwjh ?kVuk crkbZ vkSj esjs firk dks eSaus 'kktkiqj esa crk;k fd esjs ifr fetkZ lkfnd csx ,oa esjh uuan mtek vkSj tqcsfj;k us esjs mij ?kkalysV Mkyk vkSj esjk ifr eq>s tykuk pkgrk Fkk oks eq>s tku ls ekjuk pkgrk Fkk] fdUrq eSaus gYyk fd;k vkSj ?kj ls ckgj vkus yxh rks esjs lkl&llqj eq>s ysdj 'kktkiqj vk x;s o esjs lkFk lHkh us ekjihV dh o esjk ngst dk 5 rkSyk lksuk esjh uuan mtek us vius ykdj esa j[k fy;k gS o esjk lkjk ngst diMs vius ifr ds?kj NksM vkbZ gawA vr% Jheku th eSa fjiksVZ djrh gwa fd esjh tku dh j{kk dh tk, vkSj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tk,A fn- 24@12@2013 izkFkhZuh Q---
Qjgk [kkWu firk vCyqy they [kkW fuoklh & ykyiqjk] 'kktkiqjA [13] In the FIR it is not mentioned that when and in what manner she has been harassed in connection with demand of dowry and it is also not explain why she has not immediately lodged the report. She has lodged the report when petitioner No.1 has divorced her. Thus, it seems that the FIR is a counter blast of the fact of divorce given by the petitioner No.1. Respondent on 19/11/2012 in the presence of her parents in her own hand writing admitted that she has not fulfill her matrimonial responsibilities and obligations and she will not repeat this mistake in future which reads as under :--:9 :-
"eSa Qjgk fetkZ vius eEeh ikik ds ?kj eEeh ikik ds lkeus] vius iwjs gks'k gokl esa fy[k jgh gwW vkSj eSa eku jgh gwWa fd eSus vius llqjky okyks dks & lklk esjs ifr dks] esjh uUnksa dks ,oa esjs llqj tks fd Heart patient gS mUgs Brain Hammerhoege gks pqdk gS vksj orZeku esa Sugar dh fcekjh ls Hkh ihfMr gSaA mu lcdh ejth ds f[kykQ euekuh djh vkSj eSus vius ?kj ds izfr iw.kZ :i ls dksbZ ftEesnkjh ugh fuHkkbZ] vkSj muds }kjk ckj ckj le>kus ij Hkh /;ku ugh fn;kA eSa vius ifr ls dHkh eqtksjh ugha d:axhA eSaus viuh csVh ,'ky dh ijofj'k esa Hkh ykijokgh djh cPph dh lgh ftEesnkjh ugh mBkbZ] eSaus le; ij nw/k Hkh ugh fiyk;kA vkSj eSa vc ls oknk djrh gwW fd esjs }kjk Hkfo"; esa bl izdkj dh dksbZ xyrh ugha gksxh vkSj esa vius okns ij dk;e ugh jgk ikbZ rks vius vki vius ekaW] firk ds lkFk vk tkmxh vkSj vius ifr dh viuh csVh dh dLVMh nwaWxh] bl ckr ds fy, eSa >xMk ugha d:aWxhA ".
[14] The dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was referred to Shri Vibhor Khandelwal for mediation. The report is filed alogwith petition in this report dated 04/04/2013, it is observed by the mediator Shri Vibhor Khandelwal that :-
" On the other hand Mrs. Farah Mirza expressed that she is not having any problem with Mr. Sadik and she further expressed that she cannot control anyone from her paternal family from speaking anything but assured Mr. Sadik that she will try everything to convince her relatives and parents for not interfering in her family matters. She furthermore accepted that neither there is any demand from Mr. Sadik, his parents or relatives nor she has ever been subjected to any kind of violence in her matrimonial house including mental, physical, sexual, economical or emotional. Mrs. Farah Mirza fairly accepted that she is little irresponsible about baby feeding and domestic works as she do not have interest in all these things, but at the same time she has promised Mr. Sadik that from now onwards she will try to be more careful for Babty Eshal and will also cooperate with Mr. Sadik to improve their matrimonial relationship."
` [15] From these documents it is clear that the -:10 :- petitioners have never treated respondent No.2 with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and she has not been harassed by the petitioners. On the other hand respondent No.2 was failed to perform her matrimonial obligations. There is general,vague and uncertain allegations against petitioners in the FIR. Thus, this is a fit case for using extra ordinary jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code.
[16] With the aforesaid petition under Section 482 of the Code is hereby allowed. Therefore, criminal proceedings for the offence under Sections 498- A,323,294 and 506 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, i.e. criminal case No. 4894/2014 pending before JMFC, Indore, which is arises out of Crime No. 5/2014 registered at Police Station Aerodrum, Indore is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the petitioners are discharged from the aforesaid offences.
Copy of the order be sent immediately to concerned Magistrate for information and compliance.
[Jarat Kumar Jain ] Judge skt -:11 :- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR BENCH AT INDORE (SINGLE BENCH) (HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JARAT KUMAR JAIN ) MCRC No. 7052 OF 2014 Mohammad Sadiq S/o Mumtaz Beg & Ors.
VERSUS State of M.P. & Ors.
******
ORDER
( Reserved on 02.12.2015)
POST FOR -01-2016
(JARAT KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
-01-2016