Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 April, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 19 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9959 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SANDEEP PATEL S/O SHRI JAYKARAN PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE GANYARI, UMARIA
PAAN, KATNI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAYKARAN PATEL S/O LATE SHRI DEENDAYAL
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE GANYARI,
UMARIA-PAAN, KATNI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. CHHOTI BAI PATEL W/O SHRI JAYKARAN
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE GANYARI, UMARIA-
PAAN, KATNI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SOURABH KUMAR SONI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION
M AJHGAWAN , DISTRICT-JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. KIRTI PATEL W/O SHRI SANDEEP PATEL D/O
SHRI DASRATH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE CHANGAWAN, POLICE STATION
MAJHGAWAN, TEHSIL SIHORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SHRI SUNIL LKUMAR S/O SHRI MAHESH PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO 212,
KUMHISATDHARA, TEHSIL DHIMARKHEDA ,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 4/24/2023
2:39:30 PM
2
WARD NO 7, VILLAGE PARSEL ,KATNI,(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SUPRIYA SINGH - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT/STATE
AND MS. POOJA GAJRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashment of First Information Report, registered at Crime No.40/2022 and also the proceedings which are pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sihora, District- Jabalpur vide RCT No.338/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.3 on 19.06.2019. The petitioner No.1 or his family members never made any demand of dowry from respondent No.3 or her family members. Yet, the behaviour of respondent No.3 was not proper and she always remained rude with the old aged parents of the petitioner No.1. On a complaint made by the petitioner No.1 on 15.09.2021, the petitioners and respondent No.3 appeared before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra and in Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, the behaviour of respondent No.3 was totally indifferent and she threatened the petitioner No.1 and his family openly which is evident from the order sheet dated 18.01.2022 which is also brought on record at page no.18. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 lodged a First Information Report under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and also under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 31.01.2022 (Annexure P/2) against the petitioner No.1 and his parents who are petitioner No.2 and 3 in the present petition.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 33. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that a perusal of the First Information Report which has been brought on record as Annexure P/2 reflects that the petitioners have been falsely implicated on totally baseless and concocted allegations. A perusal of the proceedings before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra reflects that lodging of First Information Report was merely an after thought and if the allegations in the First Information Report and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are taken into consideration, the same would reveal that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and all the witnesses in cyclostyled form have given statements which reflect that the implication of the petitioners is baseless and accordingly, the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed. Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.47904/2019 (Alok Lodhi & Ors vs. State of M.P. & Anr).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the First Information Report reflect prima facie allegations against the petitioners. Therefore at this stage, no interference is warranted in the present petition inasmuch as, the veracity of allegation is to be adjudged during the course of trial which is to be conducted by the trial Court. It is contended by the counsels for the respondents that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sift the evidence and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. It is further contended by the counsels for the respondents that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and on the contrary, the petitioners ought to have filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, counsels submit that the present petition deserves to be Signature Not Verified dismissed.
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 45. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioners have challenged the entire proceedings pertaining to Crime No.40/2022 and also ensued trial vide RCT No.338/2022 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Sihora, District Jabalpur. The petitioners have filed a complete copy of charge-sheet along with the petition.
7. A perusal of the First Information Report reflects that a typed complaint was submitted by the respondent No.3 before the Police which has been reproduced in the First Information Report.
8. As per the complaint moved by the respondent No.3, it was alleged that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3/complainant was solemnized on 19.06.2019 and the father of the respondent No.3/complainant gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in "Lagun". It is further stated in the complaint that at the time of marriage, the father of the respondent No.3/complainant gave a Delux motorcycle costing Rs.70,000/- and other house hold items like Almirah, Cooler, bed, etc. of value of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1. After the marriage, the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 were blessed with a daughter namely, Sanskriti and the daughter of respondent No.3 is residing with her at the house of father of the respondent No.3/complainant at Village Changanwa. The respondent No.3/complainant further stated in the complaint that after one and a half year of the marriage, her husband was misguided by his parents and he started manhandling the respondent No.3/complainant. The information regarding ill treatment was given by the respondent No.3/complainant to her parents and when the parents of the respondent No.3/complainant came to take the respondent No.3/complainant along with Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 5 them, her in-laws did not let her go with her parents. It is also stated in the complaint that the matter was compromised with intervention of the Station House Officer, Majhgawan. After lapse of one month, again the husband/petitioner No.1 of the respondent No.3/complainant was misguided by non-applicant Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 (as numbered in the complaint) and again committed "marpeet" with the respondent No.3/complainant and demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the respondent No.3/complainant was threatened that if she does not bring the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, she would be set on fire. Therefore, a complaint was made by the respondent No.3/complainant against the petitioner No.1 and his family members.
9. In the charge sheet, there are statements of other witnesses like father of the respondent No.3/complainant namely Mr. Dashrath Patel, mother of the complainant namely Smt. Laxmi Bai, brother of complainant namely Mr. Raghav Singh Patel, Grandmother of the complainant namely, Smt. Premwati Bai, Grandfather of the complainant namely Mr. Lochan Prasad, neighbours of complainant namely Shyamsundar Lodhi and Sarju Prasad Lodhi.
10. A perusal of the statements of all these witnesses reflect that identical allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and the allegations are to the effect that the present petitioner No.1 demanded dowry of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and as the respondent No.3/complainant could not fulfill the demand, the respondent No.3/complainant was subjected to "marpeet" and mental torture by the present petitioner No.1.
11. The allegations against all the petitioners are identical, omnibus and no individual overt-act is attributed on the part of the petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has taken note of the practice Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 6 which is being taken recourse to by implicating the relatives of the husband on the basis of omnibus allegations.
12. The Apex Court has also taken note of the facts that the statutory provisions which are made available to the wife are being misused and the relatives of the husband are also being pitchforked and are being subjected to prosecute.
13. The Apex Court in the the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) held in paragraphs 20, 25 and 27 as under:-
"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 dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
* * * *
25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co- accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of overimplication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 7 complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
* * * *
27. The High Court in our considered opinion appears to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR do not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant's husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act."
14. The Apex Court in the case of K. Subba Rao and Others vs. State of Telangana and Others reported in 2018 (14) SCC 452 has held in paragraph 6 as under:-
"6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 551"
1 5 . The Apex Court further in the case of Neelu Chopra and Another vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10 SCC 184 has held in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:-
"9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 8 each and every accused in committing of that offence.
10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants."
16. The Apex Court also in the case of Kanas Raj vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 has held in paragraph 5 as under:-
"5............In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. 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 overenthusiasm 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."
17. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in Geeta Mahrotra (supra) it would reveal that in the complaint, the omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. No individual act is attributed to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are parents of petitioner No.1. It is nowhere stated in the First Information Report or in the statements of witnesses as to what was the individual conduct of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 respectively. If the First Information Report is taken into consideration in its entirety, the same reflects that the petitioner No.2 and 3 were misguided by the petitioner No.1 and therefore, the petitioner No.1 committed "marpeet" and demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent No.3/complainant as dowry.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 918. The following paragraph of the complaint is important, to take into consideration the allegations levelled against the petitioners:-
" ;g fd 'kknh ds djhc Ms< lky ckn ls ifr }kjk lkl llqj vukosnd dze kad 2 ds cgdkos esa vkrs gq, vk;s fnuksa esjs lkFk ekjihV dh tkus yxh ,oa bl laiw.kZ ekeys dh tkudkjh f'kdk;rdrhZ us vius ekrk firk dks Qksu ij nh Fkh rFkk esjs ekrk firk eq>s ysus vk, ysfdu esjh llqjky okyksa us eq>s ek;ds ugha tkus fn;k A ftldh fyf[kr esa vkilh le>kSrk Fkkuk izHkkjh e>xoka }kjk djkrs gq, lqyg djk nh FkhA ftldh Nk;kizfr vkosnu ds lkFk layXu gS mlds dqN ekg ckn rd fj'rksa esa feBkl py jgh FkhA ;g fd Jheku th le>kSrk ds ,d ekg ckn ls iqu% vukosndx.k dze kad 2] 3] 4] 5 ds cgdkos esa vkrs gq, ifr }kjk f'kdk;rdrkZ dks vk, fnuksa ekjihV djrs gq, 100000@& ,d yk[k :i;s uxn dh ekax dh tkus yxh ,oa f'kdk;rdrkZ ds mij >wBs vkjksi yxk, tkus yxs rFkk dgk tkus yxk fd vius ek;ds tk vkSj ,d yk[k :i;s lkFk ysdj vk vkSj vxj ,d yk[k :i;s ugha ykrh gS rks lksrs le; ge yksx feV~Vh rsy Mkydj vkx yxk nsxsa vkSj rw ej tkosxh vxj ftUnk jguk gS rks vius ek;ds ls ,d yk[k :i;s uxn ysdj vk ftlds Mj ds dkj.k esa vius ek;ds esa vius ekrk firk ds lkFk fuokl dj jgh gwWA "
19. The aforesaid reflects that the allegation against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is to the effect that as the present petitioner No.1 was misguided by petitioner Nos.2 and 3, therefore, they committed marpeet with the respondent No.3/complainant. It is nowhere alleged in the entire complaint that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 demanded dowry individually. The allegations levelled in this complaint, does not reflect the individual overt-act on the part of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. None of the witnesses have stated anything as regards the individual conduct of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
20. In view of the aforesaid, the implication of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the considered view of this Court is unsustainable and on the basis of omnibus allegations, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Geeta Mahrotra (supra), the prosecution of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is unsustainable.
21. So far as the objection of the respondents that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the quashment of the prosecution is concerned, the same is no more res-integra that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also maintainable.
22. The Apex Court in the case of Kapil Agarwal and Others vs. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 10 Sanjay Sharma and Others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524 has held in paragraph 18 as under:-
"18. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC.
18.1. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon the accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.
18.2. As held by this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat [Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] , Section 482 CrPC is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution."
23. In view of the aforesaid, the First Information Report registered against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, vide Crime No.40/2022 on 31.01.2022 at the Police Station Majhgawan, District-Jabalpur is hereby quashed and accordingly all consequential proceedings pending in RCT No.338/2022 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sihora, District-Jabalpur so far as they relate to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 also stand quashed.
24. It is made clear that this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial which is to be conducted against petitioner No.1.
25. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM 11(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE sp Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 4/24/2023 2:39:30 PM