Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Saroj Devi Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.15433/2018
(Smt. Saroj Devi Tiwari and others Vs. State of M.P. and another)
Jabalpur, Dated : 27.08.2018
Shri Chandrapal Singh Parmar, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Saurabh Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.
None appears for the respondent No.2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at the motion stage. This application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the proceeding of Crime No.197/2018 lodged at Police Station Garha, Jabalpur for offence under sections 498-A/34 of the IPC.
Bereft of the unnecessary details the facts requisite for the disposal of this petition are that, marriage of the complainant was performed with Bhupendra Tiwari. The applicant No.1 is mother of Bhupendra Tiwari, applicant No.2 is brother of Bhupendra Tiwari and applicant No.3 is the wife of applicant No.2 Brajendra Tiwari. Husband of the complainant died two years prior to lodging of the FIR. The complainant alleged that after the death of her husband, she is living in the matrimonial home. Her mother-in-law applicant No.1 Smt. Saroj Devi Tiwari, brother-in-law applicant No.2 Brajendra Tiwari and sister-in-law applicant No.3 (wife of Brajendra Tiwari) have committed cruelty to her. They threatened, taunted and pressurized her to vacate the house. They also stated that she should leave her matrimonial house and live with the parents in her maternal home. On 23.3.2018, the accused persons quarreled with her in the morning and threatened her to leave the house. On this report, crime has been registered against the applicants for offences under sections 498-A/34 of the IPC.
On behalf of the applicants, it is contended that, the applicant No.2 is serving at Mumbai and they are living at Mumbai. They come to Jabalpur for short period. During this period, they stay in the house. The complainant quarrel with them and not allowing them to stay in the house. It is also contended that the complainant has lodged the report to wreak vengeance against the applicants. On 27.2.2018, the applicant No.3 lodged a complaint against the complainant before Police Station, Garha but no report was registered. It was written as a non-cognizance offence under section 155 of the Cr.P.C. Referring to the contents of complaint, it is alleged THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.15433/2018 (Smt. Saroj Devi Tiwari and others Vs. State of M.P. and another) that the respondent No.2 has been playing truant to the applicants by demand of Rs.5.00 lacs for maintenance of the complainant. On 16.2.2018 when the applicant No.3 came to Jabalpur with her husband and mother-in-law, the complainant demanded Rs.5.00 lacs for her maintenance. She threatened that if this amount has not been paid, she will not permit to live in the house. On 26.2.2018 the applicant No.3 was beaten by the complainant. When parents of applicant No.3 tried to resolve the same, the complainant did not pay any heed to them.
It is also contended that the applicants are threatened by the respondent No.2 in not allowing to live in the house and on the other hand, she has falsely lodged the FIR. Hence, offence under section 498-A of the IPC, is not made out against the applicants.
On behalf of the respondent No.1/State, above arguments are vehemently denied and it is contended that the applicants are responsible to commit the crime. As and when the applicants come to Jabalpur from Mumbai, the complainant is being harassed by them.
Perused the record.
For offence under section 498-A of the IPC, it is not necessary that there should be demand of dowry but if the cruelty is caused against woman by husband or relatives of the husband of a woman, prima facie, offence is made out. "Cruelty" means any willful conduct which is of such of nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or to danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Therefore, the complainant has been mentally and physically subjected to harassment and cruelty. The complainant is a widow and subjected to cruelty by the relatives of her husband. Such cruelty consist of harassment of the woman with a view to as is likely of leading the woman to injure physically or mentaly.
Objection raised by the applicants are all required to be considered after evidence is recorded. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the order dated 09.08.2017, passed in M.Cr.C. No.3615/2016 Siddha Narayan Pandey and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another and Dashrath P. Bundela and others Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2012 (1) M.P.H.T. 196, the same are of no avail to the applicants in the present circumstances. The evidence oral and documentary disclose trustworthy or reliable in the instant cases.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.15433/2018 (Smt. Saroj Devi Tiwari and others Vs. State of M.P. and another) It would not be appropriate for the High Court to analyze the facts of the case, in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether the conviction should be sustainable and of such premises arrive at the conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. This Court is not called to embark upon enquiry whether the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet are reliable or not. These are the matters which can be examined only by the Court concerned after entire material is produced before it on thorough investigation and if evidence is lead. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Kumar Palo) JUDGE pn Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE Date: 2018.08.29 16:13:02 +05'30'