Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 Cr.R. No.521/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Criminal Revision No.521/2021
Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and others
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Date of Order 18/08/2021
Bench Constituted Single Bench
Order delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi
Whether approved Yes
for reporting
Name of counsel for For Applicants: Mr. Ahadullah Usmani,
parties Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Prakash
Gupta, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent no.2 : Mr. Manoj
Chaturvedi, Advocate
Law laid down FIR lodged under Section 498-A of IPC
and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
after coming to know that husband is
going to marry another lady, alleging
incidents occurred almost two years prior
to the date of lodging the FIR and after
filing suit for seeking decree of divorce
under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage
Act. The FIR is nothing but an after-
thought and counter-blast to the suit filed
by the husband for seeking decree of
divorce. Charges framed are liable to be
quashed.
Significant Para Nos. 17
Reserved on : 26.07.2021
Delivered on : 18.08.2021
(O R D E R)
(18/08/2021)
1. The applicants have preferred this criminal revision
under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 16.02.2021
2 Cr.R. No.521/2021
passed in SCATR No. 38/2020 by Special Judge, (Atrocities)
Mandla framing charge against the applicant no.1 under
Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and Sections 3(1) (z), 3(1)(zc) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 under
Section 498-A of IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
and Sections 3(1) (s), 3(1)(z) and Section 3(1) (zc) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. As per the applicants, the court below has not considered
the factual aspects of the matter in consonance with the actual
existing legal position and ignoring the same, framed charges
against the applicants.
3. For deciding the correctness of the order, the important
facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 20.04.2015, the
applicant no.1 entered into marriage with the non-applicant
no.2 at Jagannath Mandir, Jabalpur and out of the said
wedlock, the non-applicant no.2 gave birth to a child on
01.03.2016. The non-applicant no.2 belongs to 'Gond'
community and after marriage, the applicant no.1 and non-
applicant no.2 were residing as husband and wife but with
effect from 02.01.2016, the non-applicant no.2 started living
separately as the relations between them were not cordial and
there was some dispute between them. When it became almost
impossible to settle the disputes, the applicant no.1 filed a suit
on 07.05.2019 seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13-A
of Hindu Marriage Act, 1959 at Family Court, Dindori.
4. The notice was issued to the non-applicant no.2 and after
receiving notice and knowing about filing of the divorce
petition, she lodged a complaint to the Police Station, Kotwali,
Mandla District Mandla and after enquiring about the
complaint, the police registered the offence against the accused
persons under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. The offence has also been registered under the
3 Cr.R. No.521/2021
provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants moved an
application before the Court below under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C. for discharging them because the complaint made by
the non-applicant no.2 is nothing but a counter-blast, just to
create pressure upon the applicant no.1 to get his petition of
divorce withdrawn. The said application has been considered
by the court below and rejected vide impugned order dated
16.02.2021 thereby not considering the aspect that a false
complaint has been made by the non-applicant no.2
considering the fact that divorce petition has already been filed
by the applicant no.1.
6. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicants
that though the complainant originally belonged to 'Gond'
community, which comes under Scheduled Caste category but
after marriage with the applicant no.1, she did not remain to be
in SC category and as such, cases relating to the offences of
SC/ST Act are not made out against the applicants. The court
below rejected the application mentioning therein that at the
stage of framing of charges, the court has very limited scope of
interference and in view of the material placed by the
prosecution, even if suspicion arises regarding false
implication, the accused cannot be discharged.
7. Shri Ahadullah Usmani, learned counsel appearing for
the applicants criticized the order passed by the Court below
and submits that in view of the existing factual position,
admittedly after living separately from the applicant no1, the
non-applicant no.2 has not made any report to the police and
has also not made any complaint with regard to demand of
dowry nor attributed anything against the applicants that they
have committed any offence relating to SC/ST Act. He submits
that the non-applicant no.2 started living separately with effect
from 02.01.2016 and after almost three years, he filed a suit for
4 Cr.R. No.521/2021
decree of divorce under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act
and till then there was no complaint made by the non-applicant
no.2 but only after receiving the notice, she has made false
complaint. According to learned counsel for the applicants,
there are several judgements of the Supreme Court as well as
the High Court that under such a circumstance, the FIR can be
quashed and accused can be discharged and, therefore, he
submits that the court below has not considered this aspect,
therefore, he is asking that the order of the court below
deserves to be set aside and the applicants be discharged from
the offences registered against them. He has placed reliance
upon a decision reported in (2013)9 SCC 293 Prashant Bharti
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi).
8. Shri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the
State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the
applicants and supported the order passed by the court below,
saying that on the basis of the material available, the court
below has rightly rejected the application under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C.
9. Shri Manoj Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for
the non-applicant no.2, although not disputed the factual aspect
of the matter but supported the submissions made by the State
counsel and also supported the order passed by the court below,
rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
10. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and the documents available on record, it is clear that
undisputedly, the marriage was solemnized between the parties,
i.e. applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.2 in the year 2015 and
due to bitterness developed in their relations, they started living
separately with effect from 02.01.2016.
11. On perusal of record, nothing has come to indicate that
from the date of living separately till the date of lodging the
FIR, any complaint has ever been made by the non-applicant
5 Cr.R. No.521/2021
no.2 to any of the authorities or to the police attributing against
the applicants that they have ever demanded any dowry or
created any act which comes under the provisions of SC/ST
Act or any offence was made under Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. From the FIR, it is clear that the same was
made on 09.01.2020 whereas the husband/applicant no.1 had
filed a suit for seeking decree of divorce on 07.05.2019 before
the Family Court, Dindori. The notice was issued to the non-
applicant no.2 and after the same was served upon her, she
filed the complaint.
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.
6 Cr.R. No.521/2021
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
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.
7 Cr.R. No.521/2021
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."
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
8 Cr.R. No.521/2021
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
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 charge-
sheet 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 Cr.R. No.521/2021
"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 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
10 Cr.R. No.521/2021
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. 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."
11 Cr.R. No.521/2021
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 Station-
Mahila 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.
12 Cr.R. No.521/2021
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
13 Cr.R. No.521/2021
aforesaid demand and the dispute was related to non-
adjustment 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 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
14 Cr.R. No.521/2021
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 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.
...............
...............
19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well- intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin's weapon. If the cry of 'wolf' is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual 'wolf' appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalised a statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that 15 Cr.R. No.521/2021 in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
9. The Apex Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667] held that:-
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.
10. The Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012)10 SCC 741] held that :-
20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which 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.
11. Hon'ble the Apex court in the recent judgment, Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U.P. And anr., passed in criminal appeal no. 1265/2017 dated 27.7.2017 as observed in para 14, as under :-
"14. €Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression "cruelty" in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This 16 Cr.R. No.521/2021 Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement".
12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of this Court, the instant petition deserves to be allowed as in the aforesaid circumstances if the proceedings continued against the applicants, it would amount to abuse of the process of the court and would cause grave injustice to the applicants. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 389/2018 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Punasa, District Khandwa is hereby quashed."
17. Considering the law as has been laid down by the High Court in number of cases, relying upon the view taken by the Supreme Court, I find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case also, the FIR has been lodged by the non-applicant no.2/wife only to harass the applicant no.1 and his family members. Her statement filed along with the charge-sheet clearly reflects that she approached the police only because applicant no.1 was going to marry another lady. The allegations made against the applicants in the report lodged to the police and the statement given by her were relating to the incidents that occurred almost two years prior to the date of FIR. She did not disclose as to why at the relevant point of time, she did not make any complaint. She has also not disclosed and not stated when she started living separately from 2016, she did not lodge any report to the police but only after coming to know about filing of the suit and fact of marriage of the non-applicant no.2 with another lady, the complaint/FIR was lodged to the police. It can be easily presumed that it is nothing but an after-thought and the allegations made in the FIR are improbable and do not 17 Cr.R. No.521/2021 constitute the offence as alleged against the applicants.
18. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below framing charges against the applicants is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside for the reason that the Court below did not consider the material aspect which has been discussed by this Court hereinabove. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicants under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. The applicants are discharged from the offences registered vide SCATR No. 38/2020.
Ex consequentia, the criminal revision is allowed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao Digitally signed by SATYA SAI RAO SATYA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=fd8212036fdbf89fa7ca6dd1d4556 1a7803f38162f693a3cbabf7e416131fa7f, SAI RAO pseudonym=6D368848B6731EB999EE2C5 4F154A7245187F1E5, serialNumber=D71B7C71D530E3C544E8EB F848D8818167BECB37EB09E44776D06679 70EED1E9, cn=SATYA SAI RAO Date: 2021.08.24 15:18:48 +05'30'