Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 12
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another)
(1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
(SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava)
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019.
Amit Kumar Pandey and another.
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & another.
Shri Chandrahas Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rangdev Singh, P.L. for respondent No. 1-State.
None for the respondent no. 2.
Whether approved for reporting:
Law laid down:
Significant paragraphs:
-O R D E R-
(08/01/2020) Petitioners- accused have filed this M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceeding of criminal case no.
351/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in connection with crime No. 28/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that marriage of respondent no. 2 was solemnized with petitioner-accused No. 1 on 29.05.2013. Petitioner-accused no. 2 is father-in-law of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 submitted written report M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (2 on 07.03.2019 before Police Station Mahila Thana Satna. It is mentioned in this report that petitioner-accused No. 1 is posted as Cashier Gramin Bank Satna. They are residing at Satna since 24.04.2014. They blessed one girl, her father-in-law petitioner no. 2 was also came there. Petitioners-accused demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry. They abused filthy language. They tortured and humiliated her. They told her that petitioner- accused no. 1 will solemnize another marriage because respondent no.2 is not beautiful and mentally retarded then she telephoned. Her parent was agreed to give Rs. 4,00,000/- but petitioners-accused were not ready for that. She was sent her parental house on 20.12.2018. On 14.01.2019 she reached in the office of the petitioner-accused no. 1 where petitioner- accused no.1 abused filthy language, he pushed her so she returned to her parental house, thereafter on 06.03 2019 she again reached in the house of petitioners-accused at Satna. Petitioners-accused met her, they again demanded dowry, abused filthy language, threatened her, so she is living in her parental house. FIR was registered, statements of witnesses have been recorded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused submits that respondent no. 2 is very adamant in nature. She never takes care of any household responsibilities and since marriage respondent no. 2 wanted to live separate from her in-laws and M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (3 settle in separate house in Jabalpur city. But the present petitioner-accused no. 1 being a government employee he was posted in Gramin Bank in Village- Bamorekala, District Shivpuri. He wanted to live with the respondent no. 2 at Village Bamorekala but respondent no. 2 and her family members clearly refused the same and they had put into the minds of the respondent no. 2 that she will reside with the present petitioner-accused No. 1 only if he agrees to live in a separate house in the Jabalpur City and not in any villages. In the month of December 2013 petitioner No. 1 got transferred from Village Bamorekala District Shivpur to Satna. Respondent no. 2 again refused to go to Satna with petitioner no. 1 and she went to for her parental house at Bamhnoda Panager, District Jabalpur. Petitioner no. 1 rented a house in Satna and tried to bring back respondent no. 2 to live together at Satna, but respondent no. 2 and her parents did not agree for the same, but anyhow the petitioner no. 1 succeeded to take back his wife and started living with her at Satna. On 17.09.2014 daughter namely Aradhya Pandey was born from the wedlock of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and since birth of their daughter the respondent no. 2 started living with her parents, therefore, petitioner no. 1 and his relatives have visited multiple times to in-laws house to bring back to the respondent no. 2 but respondent no. 2 and his parents and other family members M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (4 insulted the petitioner no. 1 and his relatives. Finally respondent no. 2 agreed to return back Satna on the condition that parents of the petitioner no. 1 will never visited the place where petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are residing. The parents of petitioner-accused no. 1 living in Jabalpur and they are not allowed to visit the resident where the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are living. Respondent no. 2 regularly threatens to the petitioner no. 1 that she would commit suicide if the parents of petitioner no. 1 visit the house of the respondent no. 2 and parents of the petitioner no. 1 are not even allowed to enter in the house by the respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 and her parents used to regularly demand money from the petitioner no. 1, therefore, petitioner no. 1 regularly giving money in various amounts from time to time to his mother-in-law and respondent no. 2 used to go to her parental house without informing to the present petitioner no.
1. Respondent no. 2 abused, insulted and threaten to the petitioner no. 1 since the marriage without any reason. Since 21.12.2018 respondent no. 2 is living at her father's house and she was not willing to come back to the house of petitioner no.
1. She left the house of petitioner no. 1. Respondent no. 2 and her parents created worst situation in the marital life of the petitioner no. 1, therefore, on 02.01.2019 petitioner no. 1 filed an application under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (5 for grant of divorce. Respondent no. 2 received notice of the divorce case filed by the petitioner no. 1 thereafter as a counter blast just after 10 days respondent no. 2 approached respondent no. 1 and presented herself to be tortured by the petitioners-accused by concealing the real facts lodged false report. Petitioner no. 1 and his family members already filed so many complaints against respondent no. 2. FIR was lodged as a counter blast, so there is no case is made out against the petitioners-accused under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. So quash the criminal proceeding of criminal case no. 351/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna against the petitioners-accused.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer has objected quashment of FIR and supported proceedings of trial and submits that there is prima-facie material available on record. Charge-sheet has been filed so charge-sheet cannot be quashed exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley AIR 2011 SC 1090 that controverted documents or material of unimpeachable or sterling character may be considered while M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (6 exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also clear that this is a case of matrimonial dispute.
7. This is a case of matrimonial dispute, therefore, it has to be seen as to how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 4019 has held as under:-
"This Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupak Gupta and ors. (2015) 3 SCC 424, 426: (AIR 2015 SC (Supp)
684) held as follows:
"At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not."
9. The Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 has held as under:-
"In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of respondent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (7 persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implicationssuch 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 over enthusiasm 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."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & anothers Vs. State of Jharkhand & another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 has held as under:-
"28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,`cruelty' means:-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (8 person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints 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 are also a matter of serious concern.
11. The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014(8) SCC 273 has held as under:-
"4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498-A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (9 many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the lawmakers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.P.C. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has held 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.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (10 Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:
"12.There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."
The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the Courts would not encourage such disputes."
13. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as held as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reporduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (11 possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (12
14. In the light of aforesaid legal position I would proceed to decide this petition.
15. It is revealed from the record that respondent no. 2 alleged demand of dowry and act of cruelty against the petitioner no. 1. Petitioner-accused no. 1 is the husband of respondent no. 2, so all the facts will be investigated at the trial. It is true that petitioner-accused no. 2 filed so many complaints against respondent no. 2 before lodging of the FIR but alleged facts will be investigated at the trial. Respondent no. 2 lodged complaint against the petitioner-accused no. 1, she alleged act of cruelty demand of dowry, torture and humiliation against the petitioner-accused no. 1. Petitioner- accused no. 1 also alleged act of torture, humiliation against respondent no. 2. All the facts will be investigated at the trial co the case against the petitioner-accused no. 1 cannot be quashed. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner- accused no. 2. Petitioner-accused no. 2 is father-in-law of respondent no. 2 aged 73 years old. He is residing at Jabalpur. Respondent no. 2 and petitioner-accused no. 1 were residing at Satna. Petitioner-accused no. 1 is employee of Gramin Bank Satna. He rented a house in Satna so respondent no. 2 is living with petitioner no. 1. Petitioner-accused no. 2 casually come to Satna but no specific allegation about demand of dowry, torture and humiliation against him. It appears that he has implicated M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019 (Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. & another) (13 with mala-fide intention on the ground of father of husband of respondent no. 2. So this is a fit case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked in regard to petitioner-accused no. 2-Radhika Sharad Pandey
16. In view of the above discussion, so far as petitioner- accused No. 1-Amit Kumar Pandey is concerned, there is no scope to invoke inherent power under Section 482. Thus, present petition is dismissed in regard to petitioner- accused No. 1 Amit Kumar Pandey
17. So far as it relates to petitioner-accused no. 2- Radhika Sharan Pandey. this petition is allowed, criminal proceeding of criminal case no. 351/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in connection with crime No. 28/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed in relation to petitioner-accused No. 2 Radhika Sharan Pandey.
17. Accordingly this petition is partly allowed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MISHRA Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2020.01.09 10:37:56 +05'30'