Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Narayan Katakwar vs Surbhi Katakwar on 6 April, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 6th OF APRIL 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20601 of 2017
Between:-
CHANDRA NARAYAN KATAKWAR S/O
LATE SHRI HARNARAYAN KATAKWAR ,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. 19,
1.
PARIKA SOCIETY PHASE-I, CHUNNA
BHATTI BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PUSHPA KATAKWAR W/O CHANDRA
NARYAN KATAKWAR , AGED ABOUT 52
2.YEARS, PERMANENT 19 PARIKA
SOCIETY PHASE I CHUNNA BHATTI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANIL KHARE, LEARNED Sr. COUNSEL ALONG
WITH SHRI PRIYANK AGRAWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL )
AND
SURBHI KATAKWAR W/O SHUBHAM
KATAKWAR R/O. 99, PALLAVI NAGAR
BAVDIYAKALAN POLICE STATION
SHAHPURA DISTT. BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANURAG GOHIL, LEARNED COUNSEL)
This petition coming on for hearing on admission and stay
application, this day, the court passed the following:
2
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent. As, parts of this order would contain references put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners which in the considered opinion of this Court may have the propensity to sully the honour and dignity of the respondent, she is being referred to as "Respondent" or 'X' wherever required.
2. The petitioners are accused persons before the trial Court in a proceeding initiated upon a complaint case registered under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, originally for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 385, 323, 294 and 506/34 of the IPC. The complaint case has been registered against three accused persons where accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the petitioners herein and accused No.1 Shubham Katakwar is the husband of the respondent. The learned trial Court took cognizance of an offence under Section 498-A simplicitor vide order dated 21.11.2016 and summoned the petitioners and the accused No.1 to stand trial. Aggrieved by the said order, summoning the accused dated 21.11.2016 the present quash petition has been filed.
3. A short resume of facts are as follows; The marriage between the son of the petitioners and the respondent was solemnized on 1.7.2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Bhopal. The accused No.1 left for London shortly thereafter on 3 13.07.2014 where he was employed gainfully. On account of certain incidents that had taken place in the matrimonial home, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 4.10.2014, allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial home by the petitioners as so stated by the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. On 14.10.2014, the petitioners preferred a complaint before the Police Station: Chunabhatti stating that the respondent X has left her matrimonial home and is living with her parents and they apprehended that they may be implicated in a false case by the respondent. On 20.10.2014, the police issued a notice to the petitioner No.1 asking him to appear before the police station to record statement. In the said notice it was also mentioned that notice has also been issued to X. Shortly, thereafter on 12.11.2014 the complaint case is filed before the learned trial Court by the respondent. The two other dates which are collaterally relevant are 8.7.2016 when the first motion for divorce was moved before the Family Court at Southampton (U.K.) by the accused No.1 and, thereafter, the said Court granted the decree of divorce on 24.08.2016.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P/4 which is a complaint preferred by the petitioner No.1 on 14.10.2014 to the SHO of Police Station: Chunabhatti, Bhopal. Upon perusing the complaint, this Court finds that it discloses that 4 the petitioner No.1 had informed the police that his son had married the respondent on 1.7.2014 who is also a resident of Bhopal. Immediately, thereafter his son went away to London and the formalities of sending the respondent X also to join him were in progress. Thereafter the complaint discloses that the respondent X was having relations with her male friends before the marriage, which according to the petitioner No.1 was on the information given by the respondent herself. Thereafter, she is stated to have continued with the said relations even after marriage. Upon coming to know of this relationship, the petitioners are stated to have spoken to the parents of X. The parents of the respondent, under the pretext of advising her, took the respondent to the parental home and, thereafter, they have not sent the respondent to the matrimonial home.
6. Thereafter, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the petitioners are under the apprehension that their daughter-in-law X and her family, on account of the fear and disgrace that may befall on account the activities of the respondent, may file a false complaint against them. Annexure P/5 is the notice issued to the petitioner No.1. by the S.H.O. of P.S. Chunabhatti, Bhopal on 20.10.2014. The brief notice requires the attendance of petitioner No.1 to record his statement. It however also discloses that a similar notice has been sent to the respondent. Thereafter, it requires him to attend the Police Station on 22.10.2014 at 10.00 A.M. 5
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receiving the notice mentioned hereinabove, issued by the S.H.O. of P.S. Chunabhatti, the respondent prefers the criminal complaint, sought to be quashed on 12.11.2014 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal. The complaint is elaborate and specific as far as the dates, facts figures are concerned. The statement U/s.200 Cr.P.C. of the respondent is recorded on 02.06.2016. In paragraph 1 of her testimony, she says that she got married with accused No.1 on 01.07.2014. In paragraph 2 she states that her father, who is a government servant, according to his financial capacity, got the marriage ceremony conducted and for this, he had mortgaged his house and had taken a loan of Rs. 9 Lacs and from his department another Rs.8 Lacs was taken as loan and in that way, he had indebted an amount of Rs.17 Lacs which was required for the performance of the marriage of petitioner with the accused No.1. She further states in paragraph 2 that at the time of marriage in the form of gifts, her father had given four gold bangles valued Rs.1,03,500/- and a gold chain for the respondent and a gold chain worth Rs.48,000/- to the accused No.1. Another gold chain was gifted to the respondent which was valued at Rs.68,600/- and a gold ring was gifted to the respondent No.1 worth Rs.78,000/-. Besides this, Rs.55,000/- was alleged to have been given to the accused persons to purchase the clothes. Besides that, three hotels were booked for the purpose of marriage ceremony and the expenditure for the three hotels 6 alone came to Rs.9 Lacs. In paragraph 3 of her testimony, she says that after the marriage, she and the accused went for their honeymoon to Kerala and upon their return, the younger sister-in-law of X, who resides and works at Scotland had also come down and when the younger sister-in-law was returning, the petitioners herein and the accused No.1 asked the respondent to tell her father to buy a gift from the younger sister-in-law. The respondent says that she informed the petitioners herein that her father has spent lot of money in the marriage ceremony, and he is not a person with such financial to bear that he can now purchase the gold ring for the sister of accused No.1. She further states that when she refused, the petitioners herein and the accused No.1 shouted and scolded her and told her that it was their misfortune that they have married into a family of indigent persons.
8. She further says that she felt slighted upon hearing this and she took off her own ring which she received at the time of her marriage and gifted it to the younger sister of the accused no.1. She further states that it was decided before the marriage itself that after the ceremony, within 15 to 20 days, once a Visa was received, she would go and join the accused no.1 at London. On 13.07.2014, the complainant says that the accused no.1 returned to London and thereafter, the petitioners herein became aggressive in their behaviour towards the respondent. They used to taunt her that she brought less 7 dowry than expected and used to abuse her and shout at her. She further states that the petitioners used to denigrate her family and abused them and when she spoke to the accused no.1, her husband about this over phone, the accused no.1 is alleged to have told her to obey the petitioner no.2 and to do as she says so. She further states that the accused no.1 also told her that if he had got married elsewhere he would get more dowry. She states that the accused no.1 never stood up in support of her and instead always sided with his parents.
9. In para-5 of her testimony, she states that she had to go to the university for the purpose of her passport and Visa and for that she had told the petitioner no.1 to drop her to the college to which the petitioner no.1 is alleged to have retorted that he is not the servant of the respondent and told her to ask her father to provide for the transportation. To this, she is stated to have told the petitioner no.1 that now that she is married into his family it is his responsibility to take her to the university. The next day, she says that she had an appointment at the passport office and for that she had contacted the family driver of the petitioners and called him over and went with him to the passport office. Upon her returned, the petitioner no.2 was in an extremely agitated state and abused and insulted her and alleged that she is in the relationship with the driver and asked her why she 8 had gone with the driver. She says that when she informed the accused no.1 over phone, he is alleged to have retorted as to what was the necessary for her to go with the driver and that his mother (the petitioner no.2) was correct in her conduct. In August 2014, the witness says she along with her in-laws contacted her father over phone and informed him that Rs.60,000/- which was still to be given should be paid to them in cash. She further states that her husband, the accused no.1, rang up from London and told her that her father should make the necessary arrangements for the Rs.60,000/- to be given to his parents.
10. On 12.9.2014, which was the birth date of the respondent's mother, she had informed her in-laws prior to that itself that she be permitted to go to her parental home to attend the birthday celebrations of her mother. She further states that the petitioners herein took away her phone and denied her permission to go to her parental home and told her not to wish her mother. However, on 13.9.2014 at around 1.00 pm., her mother, who was worried that on her birthday the respondent did not even call her, came to the matrimonial home. She says as soon as her parents and her siblings arrived there, the petitioner no.2 did not allow them to come inside the house and told them to leave forthwith and questioned their status. The petitioner no.2 has further stated to have told the parents as to how beggars had the 9 courage of entering their house. When the respondent attempted to intercede, she alleges that the petitioners herein told her that if she tries to intervene, she would also be thrown out of the house. In paragraph 6, the respondent states that on 14.9.2014 the respondent was on a Facebook chat with her sister, at which point of time the petitioner no.2 could not tolerate that despite her declining permission to the respondent to speak with her sister, the respondent was doing just the opposite. Upon this, the petitioner no.2 is stated to have snatched the laptop and threw it away and took the respondent to the room closed the door and physically assaulted her by dragging her by the hair and started abusing the parents of the respondent. She says that the petitioner no.2 said that the father of the respondent is a man of poor character and so is her mother and so is the respondent and her sister and threatened to disclose their true selves before the society at large.
11. At this juncture, the complainant/respondent states that she requested the petitioner no.2 not to harass her upon which the petitioner no.2 told her that if she wanted to save her marriage she should get Rs.5.00 lacs from her father and a "Duster" vehicle. She further says that when she refused, the petitioner no.1 who was watching everything but did not intercede or intervene. She also says that her husband who was connected through a teleconference and he also did not come to the aid and assistance of the respondent The 10 petitioner no.2 is alleged to have told the respondent that if she does not get Rs.5.00 lacs and the "Duster" vehicle, then she could inform her parents that they are no longer alive, as far as the Respondent is concerned. The respondent says that she rang up her father and told him that he should consider that the respondent has died and that he should never attempt to contact her. On 19.9.2014, the respondent says that the petitioner no.2 took the pass word of the respondent's email and Facebook, changed the pass words and sent scurrilous messages through those accounts.
12. In paragraph no.7 of her testimony, the respondent says that on 01.10.2014, her father-in-law told her mother-in-law that the respondent appears to be in constant touch with her family members and that her bag should be checked. The respondent says she had showed her bag to the petitioners who threw all its contents and took out the photograph of the parents of the respondent. The respondent says that she tried to keep the photograph back in her bag upon which the petitioner no.2 asked the respondent to return the photograph of her parents upon which the respondent asked her why she required the photograph of her parents to which the petitioner no.2 is alleged to have told the respondent that she wanted the photograph in order to arrange for contract killers to carry out the murder of her parents. The respondent says that she was distressed to hear this. She pleaded with the petitioners not to carry out that threat, upon which the 11 petitioner no.2 allegedly took out a licensed revolver, intimidated the respondent, and forced a confession out of her to the effect that before her marriage she was in relationship with other men which included those who were studying with her and also those who were working with her. After getting the letters written by the respondent, as required by the petitioners, the petitioners are alleged to have told the respondent that now they propose to disgrace and discredit the respondent and her family members before the entire world. Lastly, she says that the petitioner no.2 from 01.10.2014 to 03.10.2014 compelled the respondent to sleep on the floor, did not give her anything to eat, which was also known to the petitioner no.1. On 03.10.2014, the accused no.1 is alleged to have called up the father of the respondent on phone and asked him to take away the respondent from the matrimonial home. Upon the father of the respondent asking the accused no.1, the reason why he wanted the respondent to be removed from the matrimonial home, the accused no.1 stated to have told the father of the respondent that the respondent is garbage and her stench is unbearable and that they do not want to keep her anymore and stay any longer with them. He is further alleged to have told the father of the respondent that if he wants his daughter to find a place again in the matrimonial home, then he must pay Rs.5 Lakhs and a Duster vehicle and it is only in those circumstances that they would allow the respondent to stay in the matrimonial home. She further says that the petitioners 12 herein harassed her so much and have thrown mud on her character and retained with them the licence, voter ID card and all her jewellery and threw her out of the house. This is what that has been reproduced herein above in entirety and is the testimony of the respondent before the learned trial Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent has specifically drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph nos.5, 6 and 7 of the testimony of the respondent to show that a strong prima-facie case has been made out against the petitioners and therefore, it should be left to the trial Court to consider at the time of evaluating the evidence as to what the truth is in this case.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case falls within category 7 of the State of Haryana & others vs. Ch. Bhajanlal & others (AIR 1992 SC 604). As per category no.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"
is a category of cases which can be quashed by the High Court by exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The proposition put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Bhajanlal's case is easier said 13 than applied in cases. It's application across the board is fraught with dangers. Undoubtedly, the facts and circumstances of each case must be seen whether what appears to be malafide or a proceeding maliciously institute is actually one that is so or whether the material in the FIR or the complaint are such that it prima-facie inspires the confidence of the Court that what is being stated by the complainant in the FIR or the complaint case is probable.
15. In this case, the first document is the representation dated 14.10.2014 preferred by the petitioner no.1 herein before the Sessions House Officer of Police Station Chunabhatti, Bhopal. In the said representation, he discloses that the respondent had disclosed to him that she was in relationships with male friends even before marriage and that she continues to have relationships even after marriage. The petitioner no.1 says that this information that was given to him by none other than the respondent herself, that she was in continuous relationships even after marriage. Thereafter, annexure-P/5 is the notice issued to the petitioner no.1 on 20.10.2014, whereby his attendance was required at Police Station Chunabhatti for recording his statement pursuant to the complaint preferred by him on 14.10.2014. The said notice also, as stated earlier herein above, discloses that a similar notice has been sent to the respondent for the purpose of recording her statement.14
16. The complaint case has been registered before the learned trial court on 12.11.2014, though cognizance was taken much later on 21.11.2016. Of the various offences allegedly disclosed by the complainant, the court has taken cognizance only of the offence under section 498-A IPC for all particular purposes, it has refused to take cognizance of offences under sections 385, 323, 294 and 506 read with section 34 IPC. In the short reply given by the respondent, it is not reflected that a revision was ever filed or a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred before this court by the respondent and, therefore, it reflects that the respondent was not aggrieved by the learned trial court refusing to take cognizance of the aforementioned offences.
17. The testimony of the complainant/respondent clearly reveals that the thrust of all the allegations is primarily focussed on the petitioner herein as her husband, who is accused no.1, stays abroad. Merely because the complaint was filed by the petitioner on 14.10.2014 merely on that basis it cannot be said that the complaint is fabricated, false and malicious. The court must also bear in mind that with access to legal opinion, complaints/cases can be filed peremptorily against a complainant in order to have the advantage of an argument that the FIR/complaint case registered by the 15 complainant, which succeeded the intimation of the accused to the police authorities whereby they have stated that they apprehend that they could be falsely implicated, may be a credible ruse by the prospective accused in order to blunt the advantage of a victim in a criminal case who may have belatedly filed the complaint or an FIR because of several unforeseen circumstances.
18. However, the court must also keep sight of the fact that prosecution for an offence under section 498-A has become rampant and resort to the said section has also been malicious as has been held consistently by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases and several High Courts of this country. A provision of law that was introduced into the statute book to act as a shield to protect women, over a period of time was being used as a sword to take the offensive on to the side of the husband and the in-laws. Its use has been indiscriminate and unconscionable in the recent past. Merely taking cognizance by the superior and constitutional courts has done nothing to stem the tid e of the number of cases that are filed regularly. A large number of these cases are a counter-blast whereby the wife has resorted to the misuse of the said provision in order to wreck vengeance of the husband and his family where a prior action has been taken by the husband either by way of resorting to a proceeding before the 16 family court or instituting an apprehension of a false case being registered against them. Invariably in such cases, the registration of the FIR or the institution of the complaint case follows close at heel to the complaint made by the husband or his family. However, caution must be exercised and each case must be examined threadbare, if need be, to assess and ensure whether the case filed by the wife is malicious or merely co-incidental.
19. The allegations that have been levelled by the respondent against the petitioner no.1 who is above 65 years and the petitioner no.2 who is 52 years of age, are far-fetched. The allegations are far-fetched because even if they are taken in their entirety, it appears from the language used and the nature of the allegations that the same have been deliberately made out of malice. Another striking feature of this case is that the respondent, who is an educated person, never approached the police even after the alleged assault which she has stated in paragraph no.6 of her testimony or her imprisonment in her matrimonial home or on account of the petitioners herein who allegedly did not permit the respondent to go and join accused no.1 in London even though, the visa of the respondent was received by her on 24.8.2014 itself. It is, however, pertinent to mention here that in her testimony before the learned trial court under section 200 Cr.P.C., the respondent does not state anywhere 17 that the visa was received by her on 24.8.2014 and that she was not permitted to leave India to join her husband in U.K. by the petitioners. She has spoken of assault and criminal intimidation by the petitioners but her inaction of not informing the police raises a grave suspicion over the allegations that she has made in her testimony before the learned trial court. The statement in paragraph no.7 goes to show the brazenness with which the respondent has levelled allegations against the petitioners. She says that petitioner no.2 told her that she wanted to keep the photographs of her parents in order to guide the contract killer to them. The allegation is laughable ex facie because even assuming for the that petitioner no.2 wanted to engage contract killers to eliminate parents of the respondent, it would not have been a fact that she would have shared with the respondent herself.
20. In the same paragraph she says that a confession was extracted out of her forcibly at gun point by the petitioner No.2 wherein she was compelled to write down on a paper that the petitioner No.2 had extracted a confession from her to the effect that she was having relationships with the male in her college and also with men who were not working with her. Even thereafter, it is surprising that the respondent does not approach the police at the first available opportunity, for if what was stated was true, the respondent was staying in a 18 place where she was at an elevated risk of death at the hands of the petitioners. However, before filing the complaint, not having resorted to informing the police, does render the case against the petitioners suspicious.
21. The right to have an FIR registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. or filing a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., are co-ordinate jurisdictions. It is up to the complainant whether to prefer an FIR at the police station or to file complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The only difference being that the FIR and the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witness/ complainant are previous statements in writing at the time of cross-examining its maker. In a complaint case, the complaint and the statement made under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. are previous statements for the same purpose as that in a police case. In this particular case, in its specific facts and circumstances, the representation of the petitioners to the police and the notice by the police to the petitioner No.1 precedes the filing of the complaint case itself. Though, it cannot be assumed as a Rule of Thumb in every case that the subsequent case is a counterblast, however, a peremptory move by a prospective accused would be a strong circumstance to be taken into account by this Court at the time of arriving at a finding whether the FIR or a complaint case has been filed with malicious intent.
22. Under these circumstances, as already stated herein above, if the representation made by the petitioners and the notice 19 issued by the police are not examined in isolation but conjointly with the complaint case and more importantly, with the testimony of the respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the nature of the allegations made therein, the same clearly reveal that the complaint case was filed as a counterblast to the representation of the petitioners to the SHO, Chunabhatti. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that in the specific facts and circumstances of this case which has already been discussed herein above, the Court arrives at the finding that the complaint case filed by the respondent being R.T.No.13816/2016 pending before the learned JMFC, Bhopal has been instituted with a malicious intent of harassing the petitioners herein and, therefore, squarely falls within the category 7 of Bhajan Lal's case (Supra). So, holding the said complaint case to be a malicious proceeding actuated by the malafide intentions of the respondent, the would be an abuse of the process of Court if allowed to continue. Therefore, the petition succeeds and all further proceedings against the petitioners herein in R.T.No. 13816/2016 pending before the learned JMFC, Bhopal are quashed.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE vikram/a/ravi/ss/pnm/ps Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2022.06.13 14:45:40 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8