Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganpat Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 14th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
M.CR.C. NO. 44242 of 2023
GANPAT MEENA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Dubey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri S.K. Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.2.
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition is under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nasurullaganj, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.22/2023 whereby the revisional Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court on 10.03.2023 passed in Regular Criminal Trial No.59/2021, framing charges against the present petitioners under Sections 498-A, 506, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has dismissed the revision.
2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the Courts have not considered the material aspect of the matter that though an offence under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act got registered 2 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 against the petitioners, but failed to appreciate that it was based upon false and incorrect facts with an intention to create pressure upon petitioner No.4 restraining him to proceed further in a case of divorce filed against respondent No.2. He has submitted that if facts are considered in proper perspective then it would be clear that there was no valid reason to register an FIR under Section 498-A but both the Courts ignoring the said material aspect of the matter have passed the orders in a very mechanical manner.
3. To decide the controversy as has been raised by the petitioners before this Court, the brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:-
(3.1) The petitioner No.4 entered into marriage with the complainant/respondent No.2 on 22.04.2016 as per the Hindu rites at Sehore. As per prosecution, after some time, the relations of the complainant with her husband and also his family members became unpleasant and they used to harass her for demand of dowry. It is alleged that petitioners were demanding a car costing about Rs.16 lacs and 10 tola of gold bracelet but when the said demand could not be fulfilled, the complainant was physically and mentally harassed by the petitioners and left with no option, she left the house of her husband and started living with her parents.
(3.2) As per the allegation made in the complaint, in the year 2019, at the time of Rakshabandhan, the present petitioners had assaulted the complainant/respondent No.2 and therefore, she left the house of her husband and started living with her parents. Thereafter, to reconcile the matter, though the petitioners tried to convince the complainant and also her family members, but they refused to settle the matter. It is further alleged that on 22.10.2020, the petitioners along with their relatives went to the house of parents of the complainant where she was residing 3 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 and compelled them to fulfill their demand but it was refused by the parents of the complainant/respondent No.2 because father of the complainant was not financially very sound. It was also declared by the petitioners that if their demand is not fulfilled then they would get their son remarried and after abusing the family members of the complainant, returned and thereafter a complaint was made by the complainant/respondent No.2 to the police.
(3.3) On 24.11.2020, the FIR got registered and charges were also framed. A revision was preferred by the present petitioners against the order of framing of charges but that was also dismissed by the revisional Court.
4. As per counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are financially sound and they do not need any dowry from the complainant and according to him, all the allegations about demand of dowry made by the complainant are false and incorrect. According to him, when the complainant came back to her in-laws in the year 2019 and did not make make any complaint to the police about the alleged demand of dowry, then it is clear that creating a false and concocted story, the report was made to the police that too in the month of November, 2020.
5. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 only because on 07.10.2020, she received the notice of the divorce case that was filed by the petitioner No.4 in the month of February, 2020. Thereafter, a complaint was made to the police on 24.11.2020 and the FIR got registered. He has further submitted that registration of FIR without there being any sufficient explanation, belatedly made by the complainant/respondent No.2 that too after knowing about the fact that divorce case has been filed by the petitioner No.4 (husband) and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
4 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court passed in case of Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIRONLINE 2023 SC 674. He has further placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in case of Abhishek Pandey alias Ramji Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIRONLINE 2021 MP 1742.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submission made by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that at the time of framing of charges, the Court has to see whether the corroboratory material available with the Court is prima facie constituting the offence registered against the accused and if situation is so, interference by the Court is impermissible and the Court has to frame charges accordingly. It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the respondent No.2/complainant left the house of the present petitioners because a demand of dowry was made by them and the complainant waited for some time apprehending that there is a possibility of reconciliation but when nothing was done, she was left with no other option but to inform the police. According to him, though there was some delay in lodging the FIR but it cannot be made a ground for quashing the order of framing of charges.
7. I have heard the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
8. As per the available material, indisputably the complainant/respondent No.2 left the house of of the petitioner No.4 in the year 2019 and thereafter she did not make any complaint to the police. There is no material available on record to indicate that at any point of time, the complainant had made complaint to any of the authorities or in the Society about the conduct of the petitioners or ever 5 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 raised grievance that they were harassing her because of non-fulfilling their demand of dowry. On 12.12.2020, FIR got registered against the complainant (respondent No.2) and her family members on a report made by the husband (petitioner No.2 herein) and as per the said report, the complainant and her family members entered into the house of the petitioners and started abusing, physically assaulting them and as such, offence under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code got registered against them. A copy of notice of divorce case is also available on record indicating that the same got issued by the Court on 07.10.2020 and after receiving this notice, the complainant/respondent No.2 (wife) lodged the FIR on 24.11.2020.
9. There is nothing available on record indicating any sufficient explanation for not lodging the report about the conduct of the petitioner No.4 and his family members instantly after the respondent No.2 (wife) left the house of her husband and started living with her parents. It can also be considered that the respondent No.2 (wife) had lodged the report just to create pressure upon the petitioner No.4 (husband) and his family members because he has filed a divorce case against the respondent No.2 (wife). In absence of any corroborating material and evidence collected by the prosecution that at the time when she was living with the husband (petitioner No.4 herein) in her in-laws' house, any such report in respect of demand of dowry was ever made by the respondent No.2 to the police, it can be presumed that she made a complaint to the police only after coming to know that a divorce case has been filed against her.
10. The Supreme Court in case of Abhishek (supra) has observed as under:-
6 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 "19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of presently is that Bhawna admittedly parted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-
laws in 15 February, 2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not choose to make a complaint against them in relation to dowry harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 records that the occurrence of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna against the appellants after she left her matrimonial home in February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only during festivals and is stated to be about 3 or 4 times. Sourabh, an architect, was stationed at Delhi since the year 2007 and no specific allegation was ever made against him by Bhawna. In fact, she merely made a general allegation to the effect that he also tortured her mentally and physically for dowry. No specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as to how he subjected her to such harassment from Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek became a judicial officer 6 or 7 months after her marriage and seems to have had no occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish at Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when she came to visit her in-laws during festivals. Surprisingly, Bhawna alleges that at the time of his own marriage, Abhishek demanded that Bhawna and her parents should provide him with a car and Rs..2 lakhs in cash. Why he would make such a demand for dowry, even if he was inclined to commit such an illegality, from his sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is rather incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Further, the fact that Bhawna confessed to making a vicious complaint against Abhishek to the High Court clearly shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her brother-in-law, Abhishek, is concerned, and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws. The allegation levelled by Bhawna against her mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, with regard to how she taunted her when she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A IPC.
20. We may also note that Bhawna herself claimed that Nimish came to her brother's wedding in 2012, but she has no details to offer with regard to any harassment for dowry being meted out to her by her mother-in-law and her brothers-in-law after 2009. As noted earlier, even for that period also, her allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, without any specific details as to how and when her brothers-in- law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, subjected her to harassment for dowry.
21. Most damaging to Bhawna's case is the fact that she did nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February, 2009, and filed a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings.
22. Given the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the 7 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 considered opinion that Bhawna's allegations against the appellants, such as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them. In effect, the case on hand falls squarely in categories (1) and (5) set out in Bhajan Lal (supra). Permitting the criminal process to go on against the appellants in such a situation would, therefore, result in clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings."
11. In similar circumstances, this Court in case of Abhishek Pandey alias Ramji Pandey (supra) has quashed the charges framed against the accused under Section 498-A of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act because the wife lodged the report only after filing a case of divorce against her. Paras 12 to 16 of the said judgment are relevant which read as under:-
"12. A charge-sheet has been filed by the applicants and from the statement of the complainant/ non-applicant no.2, it reflects that at the time of complaint, she had knowledge about filing of the matrimonial case seeking decree of divorce. It is also clear from the statement that the non-applicant no.2 after coming to know that applicant no.1 was going to get married with a lady namely Bhuvneshwari then only she lodged the report to the police and made several allegations of dowry and also of offences relating to the Atrocities Act.
13. The High Court in number of cases has observed that in a case where complaint is made by the wife against the husband and his family members only after filing a petition for divorce then the same is considered to be a counter-blast, just to create pressure upon the husband so that he may withdraw the case relating to decree of divorce. It is also observed by the High Court that if the fact indicates that the wife has not raised any voice alleging demand of dowry for long and has also not approached any authority regarding her grievances, but only after filing a suit by the husband complaint is made by the wife then the said complaint is considered to be a counter-blast and prosecution is considered to be an act apparently to harass the husband and his family members and such a complaint/FIR has been quashed.
14. In M.Cr.C. No. 8104/2017 (Tarun and Others Vs. State of M.P. and another), the High Court, considering the similar aspect has passed an order quashing the FIR whereby offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were registered. The High Court relying upon several decisions has 8 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 observed as under:-
"7. The parameters on which the indulgence can be shown for exercising powers available under Section 482 of 'the Code' with respect to matrimonial matters have been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 in the following manner :
"20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who 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 in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High 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: (SCC P.698, para 12).
"12. there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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."
9 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
8. In another judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310, wherein the Hon'ble Court referred to the earlier decision, observed in the following manner :-
"In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, this Court observed as follows:-
"7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
9. In the context of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the plain reading of the FIR dated 03/03/2017 filed by the respondent No.2 shows that the allegations relating to commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are vague and bereft of details as to the place and time of the incident, it also does not refer to any specific act of the applicants. According to the contents of F.I.R, the respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry by the applicants, however, it is undisputed that the respondent No.2 is living separately since year 2015 and hence there is no question of any harassment by the applicants as alleged by her as the relationship having got a strained, ever since December 2014. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has also filed complaint against applicant no.1 in Mahila Thana, Bhopal and after conciliation, she agreed to seek divorce from applicant No.1, therefore, it is difficult to believe that there is still a demand of dowry on 03/03/2017 coupled with the criminal intimidation.
10. The applicant No.1 filed a suit of divorce against respondent No.2/complainant in Family Court, Dhar in which an exparte divorce decree has been passed vide order dated 21/03/2017. After receiving the notice of the aforesaid suit respondent No.2 has filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against applicant No.1 on 03/03/2017 and on the same day, she also lodged F.I.R for offence punishable under Section 10 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 498A, 506 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the applicant at police station Kotwali, District Dhar, which clearly indicates that as a counter blast of divorce petition filed by the applicant No.1 against respondent No.2, she has lodged the aforesaid F.I.R against the applicants.
11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be evident that veiled object behind the lame prosecution is apparently to harass the appellants, therefore, to secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of criminal Court, it is a fit case in which the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of 'the Code' may be exercised.
12. Consequently, the application filed by the applicants, under Section 482 of 'the Code' is hereby allowed and the First Information Report bearing crime No.116/2017, registered at Police Station- Kotwali, Dhar, against the applicants for offences under Section 498- A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as also the chargesheet and all the consequential proceedings flowing out of the said F.I.R stands quashed."
15. Further, in case of Rohit Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2019 (III) MPWN 25, considering the similar facts as has been involved in the present case, the High Court has observed as under:-
"9. The first contention which appears to be preliminary in nature is that the documents which are brought on record regarding the complaint made by the applicant No. 1 to the Superintdent of Police, Ratlam and filing of application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights are the defence documents and there is prohibition in considering such documents in order to decide the application of the instant nature. This contention can be best answered by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, (2008) 14 SCC 1, has held as under:
"21. We should also keep in mind that it is well settled that a judgment of the Court has not to be treated as Euclid's formula [vide Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887 : JT (2008) 8 SC 621] ]. As observed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC 579 : AIR 2004 SC 4778, observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's formula nor as provisions of the statute.
22. Thus, in our opinion, while it is true that ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the court while framing of the charge in view of D.N. Padhi case [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] , there may be some very 11 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 rare and exceptional cases where some defence material when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defence material can be looked into by the court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases i.e. where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted.
38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such materials as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 CrPC the court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred."
10. The reproduced extracts of the said judgment clearly demonstrate that there is no prohibition in considering even the defence material while exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC. Consequently, the first contention of the respondent about nonconsideration of the defence material is repealed.
11. The next contention which touches on the merits of the case is that the Court cannot consider the background or the circumstances under which the complaint has been lodged as it is only required to pursue the contents of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 and the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of CrPC and if these materials make out the ingredient of offence charged against the applicants, there is no scope for showing any indulgence. In this context of said contention, it will be worthwhile to quote the following observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310:-
"15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
12 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 695, para 7) "7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
12. The consideration of the reproduced portion clearly indicates that it is open to the Court to enquire into the circumstances and the context in which the complaint has been lodged because it is not expedient in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue when the same has been filed with oblique motive or to settle the personal score.
13. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that there is no specific averments regarding the date or the occasion or any specific wording that they made for demanding dowry. The marriage was taken place only one and half year before the complaint. Earlier no complaint was made to any authority regarding demand of dowry and harasment. According to the allegation made in the complaint that on 29.08.2017 in presence of the father and maternal uncle of the respondent No.2, the applicants made demand of dowry and thrown out her from the matrimonial house but complainant did not lodged any compliant immediately after the said incident to the police. The present complaint has been made after near about 3 months of the last incident and no explanation has been disclosed about the delay in lodging the FIR. These circumstance prima facie raised doubt about the probability of truthfullness of the allegations made by the respondent No.2 against the applicants.
14. From the documents filed by the applicants, it reveals that applicant No. 1 has given notice to the respondent No.2 on 20.11.2017 regarding restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter the respondent No.2 lodged FIR against the applicants at Police 13 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 StationMahila Thana on 26.11.2017, which indicates that the respondent No.2 lodged the FIR against the applicants for demand of dowry and harassment to defeat the proceedings initiated by the applicant No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights.
15. From the reasons stated hereinabove, this court is of the view that there are no sufficient material on record to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the appellants/accused persons have committed the offence under the charged sections. The learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge missed these crucial points while framing the charge and considering the revision application filed by the applicants under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. the veiled object behind the lame prosecution is apparently to harass the applicants, therefore, the impugned prosecution is wholly unfounded.
16. Therefore, present petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed and the proceedings drawn against the applicants in furtherance to the FIR bearing crime No.18/2017 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323/34 of I.P.C. registered at police Station-Mahila Thana, Ratlam and the consequential proceedings pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Ratlam in criminal case No.2215/2017 are hereby quashed."
16. Further, in case of Sanjay Sthapak & 4 others Vs. State of M.P. and another passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10044/2010, the High Court has also dealt with a situation as is involved in the present case and also analysed the misuse of provisions of Section 498-A of IPC and also discussed the factual aspect that the complaint is made by the wife only after filing of suit by the husband for seeking decree of divorce and there is no corroborative material available then it is considered that the action by the wife is nothing but a counter-blast and as such, allegations made in the FIR are found absurd and improbable and also quashed the FIR. The High Court in the said case has observed as under:-
"5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is found that in the FIR there is no specific allegation with regard to the demand of the dowry and harassment and only omnibus statement have been made against all accused persons and when the matter was placed before the District Level Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Khandwa the statements of respondent no.2, and her brother Akash and mother Smt. Lata were recorded on 28th September, 2018 in which there is no whisper of demand of dowry and harassment on account of non fullfilment of the aforesaid demand and the dispute was related to nonadjustment or non- cooperative attitude of the respondent no.2, which is not unusual. It also appears that on behalf of the applicant no.1 divorce petition was filed before the Family Court, Khandwa on 19/09/2018 and notice was served before 25th October, 2018 and 14 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 thereafter on 28/10/2018, the FIR was lodged, this fact reflects that it is counter blast of the action taken by the applicant no.1. Apart from it, the allegation in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent man can ever reach to the just conclusion that there is just reasonable ground for proceeding further against the applicants.
6. There is no dispute about the legal preposition that the truthfulness of the facts mentioned in the FIR and the charge sheet can't be adjudicated at this stage but if the avernment is omnibus and not sufficient and not probable and do not prima facie constitute any offence and the proceeding is started to achieve the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, as counter blast the same can't continue and this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C is duty bound to set aside such proceeding.
7. The Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007)12 SCC 1 has observed in para 24 of the said judgment, which is as under:-
"24. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."
8. Now days it is general tendency to implicate in-laws by the wife in case of demand of dowry just to take revenge on account of bitterness emerged on account of nonadjustment in the materimonial house. The provision of section 498A of the IPC is not for that purpose. The Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma & another vs. Monica [(2009) 10 SCC 604] in which the Apex Court considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 281] it is held that :-
"10. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the 15 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'CrPC') and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty.
...............
..............."
Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court as well as this Court has considered this aspect that in the present scenario it is very easy to make allegations not only against the husband but also against his family members with an intention to rope them in a criminal proceeding. The facts and circumstances of the present case also indicate that the conduct of the complainant/wife i.e. respondent No.2 and her family members for not initiating any action against the husband i.e. petitioner No.4 and his family members when they were harassing her and demanding dowry creates suspicion for the reason that when she left the house of her husband and started living with her parents, no complaint in respect of alleged offence was ever made at the relevant point of time, but on the contrary a complaint got registered against respondent No.2 and her family members as they have committed crime by assaulting petitioner No.4 and his family members. It is also clear that petitioner No.4 i.e. the husband was left with no other option but to register a divorce case against his wife and when notice of the said case got issued and respondent No.2 came to know about the said fact, she approached the police and as such, FIR got registered against the petitioner No.4 and his family members.
12. In absence of any strong evidence and material about demand of dowry creates suspicion and as such, in view of the legal position as has 16 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 been considered and observed hereinabove, I am also of the opinion that this is a case in which the trial Court while framing the charges against the present petitioners, did not consider the aspect that the material collected by the prosecution in view of the facts and circumstances of the case are insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the present petitioners and therefore, the proceeding initiated against the present petitioners arising out of FIR No.189/2020 dated 24.11.2020 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order passed in Regular Criminal Trial No.59/2021 on 10.03.2023 framing the charges and the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 22/2023 on 05.08.2023 are also hereby set aside.
13. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao SATYA SAI RAO 2024.11.22 11:57:25 +05'30'