Madhya Pradesh High Court
Priyanjali Das vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34980 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PRIYANJALI DAS W/O ANKUR DHAMIJA, AGED ABOUT
39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: INSURANCE SPECIALIST E-703
NEAR SUN TEMPLE SAGAR PARADISE MORAR
GWALIOR CURRENT ADDRESS RESIDING AT DUBAI
(OTHER COUNTRY)
.....PETITIONER
( SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
.
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
MAHILA THANA DISTRICT NEEMUCH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ADITI SACHAN W/O DEVANSHU DAS, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING IN IT
SECTOR LUCKNOW AND PRESENT ADDRESS: 02,
KILESHWAR ROAD, NEEMUCH (MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI VALMIK SAKARGAYEN G.A. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL.
NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 THOUGH SERVED
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Accused/applicants have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST the Cr.P.C. (in short ''the Code'') to set aside the FIR dated 03.01.2022 registered in connection with Crime No.1/2022 at Police Station Mahila Thana, 2 District Neemuch for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2 . Brief facts of the case are that on on 0301.2022, the complainant respondent no.2 lodged an FIR alleging that she was married with brother of the petitioner namely Devanshu Das on 09.12.2018 as per Hindu Customs and Rituals. She stated that at the tie of marriage each and every household articles alongwith the ornaments and creta car were given by her parents in the marriage. Thereafter, the relatives of her husband alongwith the petitioner have used to harass her, she faced multiple medical problems and got her miscarriage of pregnancy also in June, 2019. On 22.08.2019, parents in law and the petitioner reached to maternal house of the complainant and demanded Rs.20lacs as dowry and harassed her. She also made allegations of extra-matrial affair of her husband. Hence, on the basis of complainant, the Police registered FIR bearing crime no.556/2019 for the aforesaid offence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 is wholely uncalled for as no offence has been committed by the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that there was any harassment either physically or mentally on the part of the petitioner, the present petitioner is sister-in-law of the respondent no.2 and is residing in Dubai since 2012 alongwith her husband and family members as she got married in the year 2015 i.e. long before the marriage of the respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner has used to come India occasionally and she has no reason to harass the respondent at any point of time. No mental or physical agony has been caused Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR by the petitioner and only being a family members of the husband, she has been Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST implicated by respondent no.2 falsely. Respondent no.2 itself used to live with 3 her husband at various places i.e Jaipur, Pune and other places but, nowhere she has made any complaint regarding the harassment. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 has only made general omnibus allegations against the petitioner and registration of the FIR against the present petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is also submitted that prior to registering the FIR, no investigation has been conducted by the police officials as mandated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. & Others 2014 (2) SCC 1. Thus, no specific allegation has been made against the accused/petitioners about cruelty and demand of dowry. There is only general and omnibus allegation. Hence it is clear that the petitioner is implicated in this case only being sister-in-law of respondent no.2. Therefore, present criminal proceeding as against accused/applicants is an abuse of process of law, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
5 . Learned Govt. Advocate submits that there is prima-facie material available on record, therefore, this is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked and the petition is liable to the dismissed.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
7. This is a case of matrimonial dispute, therefore, it has to be seen as to how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.
8. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley AIR 2011 SC 1090 that controverted documents or material of unimpeachable or sterling character may be considered while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST clear that this is a case of matrimonial dispute.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of 4 Bihar and others reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 4019 has held as under:-
"This Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupak Gupta and ors. (2015) 3 SCC 424, 426: (AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 684) held as follows:
At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 has held as under:-
"In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of respondent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & anothers Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 has held as under:-
"28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes 5 of this section,`cruelty' means:-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
30. 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 are also a matter of serious concern."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014(8) SCC 273 has held as under:-
"4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics" published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498-A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the lawmakers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.P.C. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy 6 tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has held as under:-
"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.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (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:
"12.There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as held as under:-
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.06 "œ102. In the backdrop of the 14:42:14 IST interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary 7 power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. Do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
4. where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
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."
15. It is evident from the record that the marriage of respondent No.2 wa s solemnized with the brother of petitioner on 09.12.2018 in India, the petitioner is staying in Dubai since 2012 to 2021 in various organizations i.e. Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.06 14:42:14 IST Raqmiyat LLC, Sun Gard Financial Systems, CR2 Channel Banking Software, Zurich Insurance Company. Respondent No.2 resided with her husband at 8 matrimonial house at various places in India only. It is also evident that there is no specific allegation about demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is implicated at the instance of respondent No.2. Hon'ble Apex Court already held in various judgments that the name of married sisters-in-law casually mentioned in the FIR without active involvement in the matter, would not justify taking cognizance against them. There is tendency to involve the entire family members of the house in domestic quarrel. So allegation made in the FIR did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. Thus, criminal proceeding is malafidely initiated against the accused/applicants on the ground of them being relative or sisters of the husband of respondent No.2. So, this is a purely misuse of process of law and, therefore, inherent jurisdiction can be invoked in this matter.
16. Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed. The FIR dated 03.01.2022 registered in connection with Crime No.1/2022 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Neemuch for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 qua the petitioner, stands quashed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.12.06
14:42:14 IST