Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Sarathe vs Smt. Preeti Sarathe on 25 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1475
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
M.Cr.C. No. 13387/2018
Ramkumar Sarathey and others
Vs
Smt. Preeti Sarathe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Prahalad Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(25.04.2019) Applicants-accused have filed this miscellaneous criminal case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the complaint case No. MJCR/1497/2017, under Sections 9(b) and 37(2)
(c), pending in the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur.
2. According to case, on 19.05.2017, on the basis of written complaint filed by the respondent, police station Ranjhi has registered an FIR against the applicants No. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is contended in the FIR that marriage of respondent was solemnized with applicant No. 1 on 19.04.2016. Soon after the marriage, applicants No. 1 to 4 had maltreated with the respondent. It is alleged by the respondent that she was being taunted by the applicants No. 1 to 4, as she did not give sufficient dowry. They had demanded for Rs. 10,00,000/- and a car from the respondent/complainant. Further, it is alleged that due to non- fulfillment of their demand they had started torturing her. Respondent 2 M.Cr.C. No. 13387/18 has also approached to Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Jabalpur, where statements of applicant No. 1 has been recorded. Respondent has refused to make compromise with the applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 1 has also filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Thereafter applicants No. 1 to 4 have approached before this High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet. Vide order dated 23.01.2018, after considering the material of the case, Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the petition and quashed the aforesaid charge sheet.
3. During this period, on 03.10.2017 respondent has filed another complaint under Section 9(b) and 37(2)(c) of Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the present applicants. It is alleged in her complaint that the applicants were demanding Rs. 10,00,000/- and a car and they had also possessed her Stridhan.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the allegation made by the respondent in this complaint are similar to earlier FIR. As vide order dated 23.01.2018, while considering the merits of the case, this Court has found, the allegations levelled by the respondent are false, thus, Court has quashed the charge sheet in relation to earlier FIR registered at Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur. Thereafter respondent has also filed a complaint in Crime No. 35/2018 for the same allegation at Police Station Pathrota, Itarsi. Same was challenged by the applicants before this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 24902/2018. In this case Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the allegation made in this case are similar with the earlier complaint filed at police station Ranjhi, Jabalpur, hence, the learned 3 M.Cr.C. No. 13387/18 Court has quashed the FIR in Crime No. 35/2018. Therefore, this present proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the same allegation, can not be permissible under the law. So far as merits of the case is concerned, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No. 2 is mother- in-law, applicant No. 3 is Sister-in-law, whereas applicant No. 4 is brother-in-law of the complainant. Respondent has also implicated applicant No. 5 and 6 in the present proceeding as they are father-in- law and brother-in-law (jeth) of the respondent respectively. It is appeared from the case that the respondent intentionally implicated the entire family members in false case. Respondent and her parents have threatened the applicants and in this regard applicant No.1 has made written complaint to the Higher Authorities. Applicant No.1 had made all the efforts to keep the respondent with him but she has refused the same. Apart from that the allegation which were made against the applicant for their act has been done by them in village Jamani, District Hoshangabad and no act has been done at Jabalpur but the complainant has registered the complaint before JMFC, Jabalpur. So far as applicants No. 5 and 6 are concerned, the respondent-complainant did not make a single allegation in her earlier complaint, therefore, it is clearly shows that she has implicated them only to harass. With the aforesaid submission he prays for allowing this petition. In support of his contention he has relied the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Harayana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 supp (1) SCC 335. 4 M.Cr.C. No. 13387/18
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicants have tortured the respondent by demanding of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a car. They have also possessed her stridhan and did not give to her. The facts of the earlier FIR and the present complaint are different and only on this basis that the charge sheet of earlier complaint has been quashed by the Court can not be a ground to quashed the present proceedings of Domestic Violence Act. There is specific allegations made by the respondent against the applicants. Therefore, it can not be quashed by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. So far as arguments of learned counsel for the applicants relating to territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the matrimonial offences are continuing offence and complainant can lodge the complaint anywhere. With the aforesaid submission he prays for dismissal of this petition.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the case.
7. From perusal of the case, it is undisputed fact that the respondent has lodged the report in Crime No. 266/2017 at Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur against the applicants No. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A , 506/34 of IPC and also Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It was alleged in her complaint that the applicant No. 1 to 4 had demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- and a car from the respondent. Due to which, they had tortured and humiliated her. Vide order dated 23.01.2018, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has found that the proceedings initiated by the respondent is amount to misuse of process of law. Further the Bench of this Court held that the alleged act was committed in village Jamani, Tehsil Itarsi, District 5 M.Cr.C. No. 13387/18 Hoshangabad, therefore, no territorial jurisdiction to JMFC, Jabalpur to take cognizance of the case, accordingly the proceedings have been quashed by the Court. During this period respondent has preferred a complaint under Sections 9(b) and 37(2)(c) before the JMFC, Jabalpur. Its reflected from the complaint that the respondent has alleged that the applicants have demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- and a car and they had given threat if she does not fulfill their demand they would kill her. She also alleged that they had kept her stridhan. She had also requested to give maintenance and compensation from the applicant No. 1.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has raised the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of the complaint filed by the respondent. It appears from this complaint that the marriage of applicant No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 19.04.2016 and the applicants are residing at Village Jamani, Tehsil Itarsi, District Hoshangabad. The parental house of the respondent is situated at Amar Nagar, Ranjhi, Jabalpur, therefore, it is clear that the matrimonial house of the respondent is village Jamani, Tehsil Itarsi, District Hoshangabad. From reading of the complaint filed by the respondent before Pariwar Paramrash Kendra as well as police station Ranjhi, it is manifested that the incident regarding cruelty was occurred in her matrimonial home situated at village Jamani, Tehsil Itarsi, District Hoshangabad.
9. To resolve the dispute arose by learned counsel for the applicant, it is necessary to read first the relevant Section of the Act, Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 6 M.Cr.C. No. 13387/18 2005 has prescribed about the jurisdiction of the Court, provision is quoted as under:-
"27. Jurisdiction--
(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which--
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.
(2) Any order made this Act shall be enforceable throughout India."
10. Apart from that in the recent verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2012 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"..at the place where the wife takes shelter after living or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of act of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of IPC."
11. Though, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given this verdict in relation to offence under Section 498-A of IPC, but the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding matrimonial dispute, therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court can be applied in this case also, therefore, looking to the specific provision of Section 27 of the Act 2005, regarding territorial jurisdiction and also in view of the principle laid down in the above cited judgment, I do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the applicants regarding territorial jurisdiction of this case. 7 M.Cr.C. No. 13387/18
12. Now this Court shall examine merits of the case. It appears from the case, initially in FIR in Crime No 266/2017, respondent has made four accused i.e. applicants No. 1 to 4, who are the husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the respondent respectively, whereas in the present proceeding she has also implicated applicant No. 5 (father-in-law) and applicant No. 6 (brother-in-law). From reading of the above said complaint, it appears that the allegation against the applicant No. 2 to 4 are ambiguous and doubtful. So far as applicants No. 5 and 6 are concerned, this Court does not found any allegation against them in the FIR registered by the respondent. It can be presumed that she has implicated applicants No. 5 and 6 to create some pressure only. It is revealed from the record during the investigation statement of respondent has been recorded by the policed under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. it is mentioend in her statement that she does not want to live in her matrimonial house. It is also reflected from the record before Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra she had narrated the same version. It is true, the applicants No. 2 to 4 are living in that matrimonial/share hold house but it is also not in dispute that the respondent did not want to live with them there. Applicant No. 1-Ram Kumar Sarathe, who is the husband of the respondent is concerned, it appears that in her complaint filed before the Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, she alleged that he had tortured her for dowry. He had also created her fake I.D. of facebook and uploaded obscene photo of her. In this regard she has given a complaint to cyber cell Jabalpur. Therefore, this Court of the opinion that the no allegations were found in relation to applicant No. 2 to 6. 8 M.Cr.C. No. 13387/18 Accordingly this petition is allowed and complaint case No. MJCR/1497/2017 registered under Sections 9(b) and 37(2)(c) pending in the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur is hereby quashed in relation to applicant No. 2 to 6. So far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, this Court found that there are prima facie allegation, are available in the case, thus, this petition in relation to applicant No. 1 is hereby dismissed. The proceeding shall be continued in relation to applicant No. 1.
13. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
(Rajendra Kumar Srivastava) Judge L.R. Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2019.04.27 00:16:53 -07'00'