Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Sarathe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2018
1 MCRC-24902-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-24902-2018
(RAMKUMAR SARATHE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-08-2018
Shri Beerendra Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned GA for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Prahalad Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent No.2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the charge-sheet of Crime No.35/18, registered at Police Station Pathrota, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad.
The complainant/respondent No.2 married to the petitioner No.1/Ramkumar Sarathe on 19/04/2016 by observing Hindu rites at Ranjhi, Jabalpur. Complainant's father had given items including home appliances according to his capability along with motorcycle and cash of Rs.81,000/-. At the time of marriage, a huge sum of Rs.12,00,000/- was spent by her father. The complainant alleges that, after the marriage, when she went to her matrimonial house, husband/Ramkumar Sarathe, mother-in-law/Lata Sarathe, sister-in-law/Gyatri Sarathe and brother-in- law/Omkar Sarathe alleged that, she has not brought sufficient dowry. Thus, the groom who are have a job get married receives Rs.10,00,000/- cash and a choiced car. The complainant was subjected to harassment. There has been a quarrel regarding this and gradually, she was taunted and threatened of her life. She was subjected to cruelty by demanding of a 'car'. She informed the incidents to her parents. For the third time, when she went to her maternal home, she informed her parents, uncle and the neighbour/Bhupendra Sarathe about the harassments meted out to her by the in-laws. Her parents tried to pacify the dispute but, nothing positive came out. They were adamant in their demand. The accused persons promised to come to the maternal house of the complainant but they did not come and after several request, they did not take her to her matrimonial house. They were only demanding money as the petitioner/Rajkumar is in a Government job. All efforts to negotiate failed and the complainant was subjected to mentally harassed by her husband through the cell phone and later, her forged ID was posted in the facebook. The complainant lodged report on 26/03/2017 before the Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Date: 14/08/2018 13:45:23 2 MCRC-24902-2018 Crime Branch, Jabalpur Cyber Cell. Subsequently, she lodged a report at Police Station Rajhi. Crime No.266/17 was lodged for offence under Section 498-A of IPC. But later, by order of the High Court, it was dismissed on the ground that, the incident took place at village Jamani under Police Station Pathrota, whereas the report was lodged at police station Ranjhi. Therefore, the present report. On this report, Crime No.35/18 has been registered at Police Station Pathrota. Subsequently, charge-sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC.
On behalf of the petitioner, it is claimed that, the second FIR filed by the complainant at police station Pathrota is liable to be quashed on the ground that, there is omnibus allegation and no specific allegation has been made by the complainant. On 23/01/2018, the earlier FIR has been quashed, on the same ground this petition has been filed.
Petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the sister- in-law and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. Respondent No.2 has not levelled any allegation against them. The parents of the complainant have threatened the petitioners and tried to assault them. Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Jabalpur issued notice to the petitioner/husband, therefore, petitioner No.1 appeared before the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra and explained his willingness to live with the complainant. But, the complainant refused to live with her husband.
The petitioners also contended that, the charge-sheet in Crime No.35/18 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed On behalf of the respondent No.1/State, it is argued vehemently and stated that, the complainant lodged the report earlier at Police Station Ranjhi, the same was set aside on the ground that, Police Station Ranjhi had no jurisdiction for investigation. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this complaint at Police Station Pathrota, Itarsi.
The prima facie evidence available on the record indicate commission of offence. It is also contended that, the statements of complainant/Priti Sarathe, her father/Madhav Prasad and mother/Sarojni Sarathe recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly establish prima facie offence against the petitioners.
On behalf of the complainant/respondent No.2, the argument is vehemently opposed and contended that, the petitioners have constantly harassed the complainant and demanded dowry. Therefore, the offence is prima facie made out. Endorsing the view adopted by the respondent Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Date: 14/08/2018 13:45:23 3 MCRC-24902-2018 No.2, the complainant has argued that, the complainant has been informing her parents repeatedly about the harassment whenever she used to come to her maternal house. It is claimed that, the petitioners have made the circumstances that, the complainant had to whether constrained to lodge the report.
Perused the case diary. Heard the rival contentions. In order dated 23/01/2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Paragraph 5, this Court considered the merits of the case along with the jurisdiction. At Paragraphs 5 & 8, the Court observed that:
5. In this case learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No.3658 of 2016 on 9.3.2017 (Parties being Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.), in which, the proceedings against relatives of the husband were have been quashed on the ground that allegations against them are vague and omnibus and they resided at different places. But, the facts of the present case are different; therefore, the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid case law is not attracted in this case. However, in view of the facts of the present case, the proceedings of the trial court are required to be quashed. The facts of the case show that the marriage was taken place on 19.4.2016 and Since January 2017 respondent no. 2 is residing in her parental house. She had remained near about 6 months in the house of the petitioners. There are general allegations with regard to demand of dowry, car and harassment and nothing has been disclosed on which date or time and month by whom the alleged demand was made and the manner by which she was subjected to cruelty and how she was tortured and harassed.
Therefore, the allegations are extremely vague and omnibus and appear to be leveled on account of fit of anger because of matrimonial differences with petitioner no.1/ husband as in the Pariwar Paramarsh Kendre she refused to settled the disputes amicably with the petitioners.
8. In view of the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are kept continued it would amount misuse of process of law. Further if the allegations are taken into consideration then also they do not constitute alleged offence. Further, the alleged act was committed in village Jamani, Tahsil Itarsi, District Hoshangabad. There is nothing Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Date: 14/08/2018 13:45:23 4 MCRC-24902-2018 on record to show the fact that any act was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur. In the circumstances, the JMFC concerned has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case against the petitioners. Hence, the charge sheet and the proceedings of criminal case pending against the petitioner are liable to be quashed This petition was allowed and charge-sheet of Crime No.266/17 registered at Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed. Consequently, the Criminal Case No.454/17 pending before the learned JMFC, Jabalpur was also quashed.
The learned Co-ordinate Bench did not direct the police to transfer the case from Police Station Ranjhi to Police Station Pathrota, Itarsi. Had it been disposed only on the ground of jurisdiction, the same could have ordered to be transferred to the police station having jurisdiction to file the charge-sheet before the competent Court. But the case decided on merits. It was held that, the allegations are extremely vague and omnibus and appeared to be levelled on account of fit of anger because of the matrimonial differences that her husband/petitioner No.1 as the complainant has refused to settle the dispute amicably with the petitioner in the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. For the same set of allegations, when Crime No.266/17, was registered at Police Station Ranjhi for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. This second FIR at Crime No.35/18 registered at Police Station Pathrota, Itarsi for offences under Section 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not maintainable. No liberty has been granted in order dated 23/01/2018.
Therefore, the present petition is also decided.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE RS Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Date: 14/08/2018 13:45:23