Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-15986-2016
(SANDEEP PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
6
Jabalpur, Dated : 13-03-2018
Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in
M.Cr.C.No.28473/2017.
Mr.Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in
M.Cr.C.No.15986/2016.
sh
Mr.S.D.Khan, learned Government Advocate for the
e
respondent/State in both the cases.
ad Mr.O.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in both the Pr cases.
Both the petitions arise out of same crime number the facts and law a point involved are also common, therefore, they were heard analogously hy and are being disposed of by this common order.
ad
2. Both the petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the First Information Report at M 271/14, registered at Police Station, Rampur Naikin, for offences under sections 498-A, 506-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is of not in dispute that the complainant/respondent No.2-Smt.Renu Pandey was rt married to the petitioner-Sandeep Pandey on 08.7.2010. The petitioner ou No.3-Smt.Sarita Pandey is the mother-in-law and the petitioner No.4- Guddu @ Rashmi Pandey is the sister-in-law of the complainant/Smt.Renu C Pandey. The petitioner-Saurav Pandey is the brother-in-law of the h complainant/Smt.Renu Pandey.
ig
3. According to the written complaint made by Smt.Renu H Pandey, at the time of marriage her father had given sufficient dowry as per his capability, which includes golden chain, weighing one and half tola, golden ring of one tola, one silver plate, silver coconut and other utensils, colour television, washing machine, almirah, gas cylinder, stove, double set bed, big box, sofa set, dinning set, 'deewan', refrigerator, sewing machine, ceiling fan, air condition and cash of Rs.80,000/-. The relatives of the accused persons were also given gifts etc. which is estimated about Rs.2 lacs. Beside other things, such as wheat and pulses were also given. The complainant was also given certain ornaments worth Rs.2 lacs which includes golden and silver jewellery, 'mangal sutra', silver ring, 'kardhan' etc. Despite this, the petitioners, namely, Sandeep (husband), father-in-law, Vinod Pandey (since deceased), mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and brother- in-law harassed and demanded Bolero jeep.
4. When the complainant reached her in-laws house, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment and she was threatened that if she does not bring bolero, she would not be allowed to live at the matrimonial house. When she returned to her maternal house and informed the same to her parents. Thinking that her in-laws will realize the circumstances one day and the position of her father, she waited for 'Gouna'. After 'Gouna' ceremony her husband-Sandeep alongwith the petitioners threatened the complainant that if she does not bring bolero sh through her parents, he will enter into second marriage with someone else e and that they will cut off all the relations with the complainant. She was ad also subjected to cruelty by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and Pr sister-in-law. She went to her matrimonial home and narrated the whole incident.
a
5. There was meeting of senior members of the society, which hy includes Ram Lakhan Shukla, Raghvendra Tiwari, Ramasharan Agnihotri ad and Rohni Prasad Dubey, etc. and they tried to pacify the things. But, the petitioners did not agree for anything less. She was not called in the M marriage of her sister-in-law (Guddi). But she attended the marriage of ceremony alongwith her brother. All the petitioners again insulted her and thrown her out. When she came to know that her husband has come from rt Pune to Bharatpur on 24.1.2014, she went to Bharatpur on 25.1.2018. Her ou husband insisted again for the Bolero jeep, failing which he will cut off all relations with her. He also threatened that he will go for second marriage C with one Ankita of Pune and started speaking with said Ankita in presence h of the complainant. When the complainant spoke to Ankita, she told that ig she is living at Pune with the petitioner as his wife and that if she does not H intend to take divorce from the petitioner-Sandeep, then she will be eliminated. She was also threatened with obscene words. All her in-laws, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law behaved her with cruelty and kept her ornaments with themselves. She returned to the family of his father and informed about the developments. Because of the fear of defamation in the society, she did not deem fit to file an application for divorce. But, now since she has reason to believe that her husband and his family members will kill her for the dowry and the petitioner-Sandeep will go for marriage with Ankita of Pune. She lodged the report.
6. On behalf of the petitoners-Sandeep, Smt.Sarita Pandey and Guddu @ Rashmi it is claimed that the complainant has made false allegations. The petitioner-Sandeep Pandey is working at Pune in a private firm. The petitioner-Smt.Sarita Pandey is a house wife. The petitioner- Guddu @ Rashmi is a staff nurse in District Hospital at Sidhi and is residing with her husband in the premises of District Hospital, Sidhi, therefore, the petitioners are not involved in the crime of demand of dowry and harassment. It is also submitted that father of the complainant is working in the Police Department at Deolaund, District Shahdol and therefore, the complaint is absolutely baseless and false. The complainant had misbehaved with the family members of the petitioner/husband. The allegations are omnibus, therefore, it is prayed to quash the First sh Information Report.
e
7. On behalf of the petitioner-Saurav Pandey (brother-in-law) of ad the complainant a separate petition has been filed on the same premises and Pr he has taken the plea that on the date of First Information Report i.e. 03.5.2015, he was minor. He was studying at Navodyay Vidyalyay at Sidhi.
a A certificate of School has been filed in this regard which shows that in hy year 2007 he joined school as a student of Class-VI and till 2014 he ad prosecuted his studies and appeared in Class-XII Exam from Vidyalyaya. He did not avail leave in the month of January, 2014. It is also contended M that the petitioner-Saurav was minor when the marriage between the of petitioner-husband/Sandeep and respondent/complainant was solmenized i.e. on 08.7.2010 and on the date of F.I.R. i.e. 03.5.2014. It is also claimed rt that he was studying in the Navodyay Vidyalayay at Sidhi and was staying ou in Hostel till 2014, therefore, the commission of the offence by him is not believable. It is also contended that petitioner-Saurav has nothing to do C with the alleged crime. He has been falsely roped in just for the sake that he h is the younger brother of the petitioner/husband-Sandeep Pandey. ig
8. On behalf of the respondent/State the prayer is vehemently H opposed and it is submitted that the complainant has clearly alleged commission of offence relating to demand of dowry and subjected to cruelty.
9. On behalf of the complainant the contentions raised by the petitioners have been completely denied. It is stated that the respondent No.2 has made report as he was subjected to cruelty and when she was thrown out of the house.
10. The complainant in her statement also made it is clear that she was treated with cruelty. The submission of the petitioner-Saurav Pandey seems to be not only logical, but probable also. The petitioner- Saurav Pandey was minor when the marriage was performed. He remained in hostel till 2014, when he passed Class-XII Exam. The petitioner-Saurav Pandey could never have demanded Bolero jeep and subjected the complainant to any harassment, for she was not at all living at the house of the complainant. Otherwise also, he was almost the child till 2014. Therefore, it appears that he has been falsely roped in, in the commission of offences in question.
11. As far as petitioner-Guddu @ Rashmi is concerned, she is married to one Vinod Kumar Tiwari and is living with him in her in-law's house at Churhat, District Sidhi. She pursued B.Sc. (Nursing) from Nursing College, Jabalpur in the year 2006 and completed the course in the year sh 2010. She was appointed as Nurse on 20.10.2011 as Staff Nurse and e worked at District Hospital, Sidhi for a period of 2 years on probation and ad she joined her duties on 16.11.2011 and completed her probation on Pr 16.11.2013. Subsequently, she joined as Nurse on 07.3.2014 at Rewa in the office of Joint Director, Health Services, Rewa. After her marriage she is a living with her in-laws in village Damak, Tahsil Amiliya, District Sidhi, hy which is far away from Rampur Naikin.
ad
12. In the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that allegations made in the M case under section 498-A are to be scrutinized with great care and of circumspection especially against the husband's relatives who are living in different cities and rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant.
rt
13. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 ou SCC 741 the Apex Court has observed that in matrimonial disputes, the casual reference to family members and unmarried sister and elder brother C of the husband in FIR as co-accused as well as parents of the husband, h specially in the absence of any specific allegation and prima case is ig common, such proceedings should be quashed by exercising the inherent H powers.
14. Thus, in the circumstances prevailing in the present case, the petitioners-Guddu @ Rashmi and Saurav Pandey have been roped in unnecessarily and, therefore, the petitions are allowed so far as petitioners Guddu@ Rashmi and Saurav Pandey are concerned. As far as other petitioners, namely, Sandeep Pandey and Smt.Sarita Pandey are concerned, the petitions is dismissed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by RAJESH T MAMTANI Date: 2018.03.21 15:29:38 -07'00' H ig RM h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh