Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshchand Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2019
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
Misc. Criminal Case No.5067 of 2017
Rameshchand Gupta and others...................Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. and another....................... Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Datt, Ld. Senior
Advocate with Mr.Manoj Singh,
Ld. Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
Ld. Government Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2: Mr.T.K.Modh, Ld.Advocate
Reserved On: 7/02/19
Passed On: 26/08/19
******
Present:
Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan
******
ORDER
( 26/08/2019) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein aggrieved by the registration of the first information report and thereafter, the filing of the charge sheet against them for offences under section 498-A, read with section 34 of the IPC as well as section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
2
2. The petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law and the petitioner no.3 is brother-in- law (Jeth) of the respondent no.2.
3. The brief facts as per the record of the case are as follows:
by an elaborate seven-page complaint dated 01/09/15, made by Respondent No.2 to the S.H.O. of Mahila Police Station at Jabalpur, the Respondent No.2 has sought the prosecution of the Petitioners herein and other co accused persons for the aforementioned offences. Along with the said complaint, the Respondent No.2 has annexed four documents which are the certificate given by the "Kaushaudhan Samaj", the photographs taken at the time of the engagement and the marriage, the invitation cards relating to the marriage from the side of both the bride and the groom, the print out of screen shots of an allegedly fictitious face-book account and also photographs of burn marks suffered by the Respondent No.2 on her stomach, allegedly at the hands of her husband. The copy of the said complaint had been forwarded to ten other authorities which include the Prime Minister of India and to the Chief Minister of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. In this complaint, the Respondent No.2 has stated that on 06/02/15, the mother and father of the Petitioner No.2 had approached the parents of the Respondent No.2 with a marriage proposal. Thereafter, on 10/02/15, son of the 3 Petitioners 1 and 2 (husband of Respondent No.2) along with the Petitioners herein went to see the Respondent No.2 at her House bearing No.1009, Tilwaraghat Road, Sagda, Jabalpur. Thereafter, it is the case of the Respondent No.2 that on 11/02/15, the father of Respondent No.2 in accordance with his stature, conducted the engagement of the Respondent No.2 with the brother of Petitioner No.4 at Hotel Arihant in Jabalpur. It is also alleged that on the day of the engagement, the father of Respondent No.2 in accordance with his financial capacity had given Rs.2 Lakhs in cash and gifted Rs. 20,000/- to the brother of the Petitioner No.4 for the purpose of buying clothes. Besides this, an amount of Rs.1100/- is stated to have been given to every member of the family and relations of the Petitioners. Under the circumstance, it is alleged by Respondent No.2 that her father had incurred an expenditure of about Rs.4-5 Lakhs at the time of the engagement itself.
5. According to the Respondent No.2, sourness developed between the parties on 14/02/15 itself when the father of Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioner No. 1 that he has booked Hotel Satya Ashoka for the purpose of marriage. At that time, the Petitioner No.1 is alleged to have mocked the father of Respondent No.2 saying that the sweets and fruits that were given at the time of engagement turned out be rotten and therefore it was disposed of as garbage. 4 It is pertinent to mention here that it is undisputed that Petitioners herein were not present along with other family members at this point of time. Thereafter, on 16/04/15 the marriage of the Respondent No.2 was solemnised with the brother of Petitioner No.4. At the time of marriage, the brother of the Petitioner No.4 was working at Hyderabad. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 has alleged in sum and substance, that her husband and her father-in-law, mother-in-law and the elder brother of her husband were consistently torturing her mentally and physically to bring Rs.35 Lakhs from her father for the purchase of a house in Hyderabad. She has also further stated that her husband never consummated the marriage with her despite several attempts by her and that the husband would force her to sleep in a separate room. She has also voiced her apprehension that her husband was involved with another woman as he would leave her alone and go downstairs and speak for a long time to someone on the mobile phone. She has also stated that her husband used to stay away from her for long hours under the pretext of work load. The Respondent No.2 has also alleged that her husband opened a fake face-book account in the name of one Renu Gupta in which derogatory averments were made against the Respondent No.2 and her family. She also states that during her stay with her in-laws, her husband, husband's elder brother, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to tell her that the way they had 5 compelled their elder daughter in law to leave within three months of the marriage, they would do the same with Respondent No.2.
6. Finally, on 15/08/15, the husband of the Respondent No.2 is alleged to have brought Respondent No.2 from Hyderabad to Jabalpur and left her at her parental home by telling her that there exists no relationship between them and that he has been transferred to Pune where he shall henceforth be staying.
7. After having gone through the extremely elaborate FIR, it appears that omnibus allegations relating to matrimonial cruelty are directed against the petitioners herein. However, the timeline relating to the alleged acts of cruelty being perpetrated by the petitioners on the Respondent no.2 is extremely relevant. On 16/04/15, the marriage was solemnized between the son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 with the respondent no.2. On 17/04/15 was the "Bidai", on which date she left for the house of the petitioners along with her husband. On 18/04/15, the respondent no.2 once again goes back to her parental home. In the evening of 18/04/15 she returns to the home of the petitioners and on 19/04/15, the respondent no2's husband left for Hyderabad. On 20/04/15, the other relations also left and on 21/04/15 the respondent no.2 goes back to her parental home. On 01/05/15, the respondent no.2 returns to her matrimonial home and two 6 days thereafter i.e. on 03/05/15 she travels to Hyderabad to join her husband. Under the circumstances, it is seen that the respondent no.2 has hardly stayed for five days in all at the house of the petitioners. Thereafter, whatever has happened has happened at Hyderabad, the matrimonial home of the respondent no.2 and her husband. From there, she returned to her parental home and then registered the FIR on 08/09/15.
8. It is relevant to mention here that a similar petition moved by the son-in-law and daughter of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 has been allowed vide order dated 21/09/16 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21205/2015 by which the proceedings against them were quashed by this court. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has drawn the attention of this court to paragraph no.7 wherein this court has held "after having gone through the extremely elaborate FIR what stands out clearly is that the majority of the allegations relating to matrimonial cruelty are all directed against the father, mother, the elder and the younger brothers of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has thus argued that even this court was of the opinion that there were allegations present against the petitioners herein while allowing the petition of the son-in-law and the daughter of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and quashing the proceedings against them.
7
9. Without doubt, the said observations were made by this court while deciding the petition of Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Richa Gupta that allegations were levelled against the petitioners herein. However, the said allegations are omnibus and repetitive. The complaint prepared by the respondent no.2 itself runs into seven pages and is dated 01/09/15 on the basis of which the FIR was subsequently registered. As the nature of allegations are all omnibus and the fact that the respondent no.2 had stayed in the house of the petitioners only for five days in all, acts of cruelty allegedly perpetrated on the respondent no.2 by the petitioners is not only highly improbable, but prima facie smacks of vengeance against the entire family of her husband clearly disclosing that the respondent no.2 was interested in roping in the entire family of her husband for the aforementioned offences.
10. Under the circumstances, it is evident that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are covered by category no.7 of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal AIR 1992 SC 604 in which the Supreme Court had held that an FIR and criminal proceedings can be quashed against the petitioners where it becomes apparent that the said proceedings have been instituted in order to wreck vengeance on the accused.
8
11. Thus, the petitioners succeed and consequently the petition is allowed and the further proceedings arising from Crime No.44/2015 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur, along with all proceedings that may have arisen therefrom are quashed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI 2019.09.03 12:10:05 +05'30'