Madhya Pradesh High Court
Majeed Khan And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 July, 1990
Equivalent citations: I(1991)DMC588
JUDGMENT Gulab Chand Gupta, J.
1. The applicants are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Class I Sihora in Cr. Case No. 59/89. They applied for their discharge under Section 239 Cr. P.C. which request has been rejected and charge as aforesaid framed. The applicants challenged the same by filing a Criminal Revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge Sihora which has been dismissed by the order dated 8-9-89. Not satisfied with the aforesaid, they have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of those proceedings on the ground that they amount to misuse of the process of the Court.
2. Record of the trial Magistrate indicates that officer-in-charge of police station Majhouli filed the charge-sheet on 21-2-89 alleging commission of offences under Section 498A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge-sheet indicates that a report was lodged by one Suraiya Parveen, the wife of applicant No. 3 Abdul Salam on 17-11-88 to the effect that she was married to this applicant on 26-5-88. On 27-5-88 when she reached her father-in-law's house, the applicants felt unhappy with the dowry that she had brought with her and had started abusing her and her parents. On 1-6-88 her brother came to bring her back to her parents' house when she informed the ill-treatment given to her by the applicants for not bringing sufficient dowry. She had further told her brother that all the applicants had told her that she should not come back unless she brings a colour TV and Scooter. On 8-6-88, she was again brought back to the house of the applicants; but since her father could not give the scooter and colour TV, the applicants continued harassing her for that purpose. Report further indicates that on 14-6-88, the applicant No. 3 left her at her parents' home because her parents had not given TV and scooter. She further alleged that she was tortured and abused every day, while she stayed in the applicants' house. On the basis of this F.I.R., the police seized certain letters and the medical certificate indicating that the complainant Suraiya Parveen was treated for chest pain, backache and sprain of right wrist joint w.e.f. 15-6-88. The police also recorded statements of complainant's father Mohd. Abdul Latif Khan, her brothers Shahadat Khan and Ashad Khan and mother Kuresha Begum. Since, according to the police, evidence disclosed sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants, they filed the charge-sheet as aforesaid.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the evidence on record does not disclose even prima facie commission of offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. It was strenuously urged that this provision should not be permitted is to be misused by the complainant to harass an innocent person. It is also submitted that there was no justification whatsoever for joining applicant Rukhsana alias Rukkobai, aged only 14 years as accused person. It was further submitted that even if the allegations against these applicants are accepted, they will, at the most, amount to civil cruelty which may be sufficient for divorce in a matrimonial case but is wholly insufficient for criminal prosecution.
4. There seems to be no dispute that the matter has to be considered in the light of Sections 239 and 240 Cr. P.C. which earlier formed part of Section 251-A of the old Code. Section 239 provides that if upon considering the police report and documents sent with it, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. Section 240 Cr. P.C. provides for further eventualities when the Magistrate does not find the charge groundless, in which case, he shall frame charge in writing and read and explain the same to the accused person and record his pleadings. These provisions were considered by the Supreme Court in Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 545 to clarify that the Court, at this stage is required to apply its judicial mind for considering whether or not there is ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused persons. The conclusion in each case necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the Magistrate is entitled and indeed has a duty to consider the entire material. Under the circumstances, it may be considered if the material on record justifies framing of the charge. As stated earlier, there is not only the report of Suraiya Parveen but also her statement and the statements of her parents and brothers to indicate that she was illtreated by the applicants as she failed to bring sufficient dowry and subsequently did not bring a colour TV and scooter. This is not the stage for meticulous examination of the statements of these witnesses. Under the circumstances, these statements sufficiently establish a prima facie case for framing charge. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that there is no ground for proceeding against the applicants.
5. Submission of the learned counsel is that the complainant was with the applicant for a very short period and therefore, cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A I.P.C. cannot be inferred. It is really difficult to appreciate this submission. Cruelty from the very beginning would not depend on a particular behaviour being continued for a longer period. Under the circumstances, simply because the complainant was harassed for few days, it cannot be said that the requirements of Section 498A are not complied with. Explanation (B) attached to this provision indicates that harassment of the woman with a view to coerce her or any of her relation to meet any unlawful demand for any property, is also covered by this provision. It is therefore not necessary that this harassment should continue for any fixed period. The anxiety of the applicants to be saved from frivolous charges and underserved prosecution is understandable and indeed appreciated. It is the obligation of this Court to see that no one is harassed by a criminal proceeding. Indeed that is the reason why this Court is examining this matter in some details. This, however, does not mean that even an accused person against whom there is prima facie material to connect him with the alleged crime, should be spared from such prosecution. This Court while judging this complaint in accordance with the established legal principles has found no substance in it and is therefore unable to accept the same.
6. As regards allegations against the applicant Rukhsana alias Rukkobai, it is not possible to give her any benefit at this stage in view of the material on record. It may be that the evidence recorded by the police during investigation does not allege anything particularly against this applicant but there are allegations that she alongwith other applicants has abused, assaulted and tortured the complainant. This evidence, in the opinion of this Court, is sufficient to frame charge against this applicant also. There is no presumption that a girl of 14 years of age would not commit any such act.
7. This Court finds no justification for the complaint of the applicants and is therefore pleased to dismiss this application.