Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radhakrishan Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 August, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8500/2016
(Radhakrishan & others vs. State of M.P. and another)
Jabalpur, dated 09.08.2018
Shri S.M. Baghel, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent no.1-State.
Shri Wakeel Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR of Crime No.198/2016, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Damoh, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., against the applicants
3. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for the disposal of this application are that, Deepak Dubey married to respondent no.2 Pooja Dubey in the year 2010. Deepak Dubey was serving in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and was posted at Allahabad and thereafter in different places. Deepak Dubey died due to heart attack at Jabalpur in the intervening night of 2 nd and 3rd September, 2015. Applicants no.1 and 2 are the parents of Deepak and applicant no.3 Rajesh Tiwari is the husband of the sister of Deepak Dubey.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
4. Respondent no.2 Pooja wife of Deepak lodged FIR at Crime No.198/2016, at Police Station Kotwali, Damoh alleging that after her marriage with Deepak Dubey everything was normal her husband was serving at Allahabad (U.P.). He died on 2nd September, 2015 due to heart attack. After his death parents of Deepak Dubey, Radhakrishan Dubey and Smt. Usha Dubey started treating the complainant with cruelty. They taunted her and harassed her. It was become intolerable for her, therefore, she left the matrimonial house and shifted to her parental house. She gave birth to a baby girl in her maternal house. After the birth of a child, she had gone to the matrimonial house 2-3 times, but her father-in-law and mother-in-law held her responsible for the death of Deepak Dubey.
5. Applicant no.3 Rajesh Tiwari is the son-in-law of applicants no.1 and 2 and husband of Deepak Dubey's sister, came to the house and thrown her from her matrimonial house. She had no option except to leave the matrimonial house. She had gone to the parental house. The amounts which were to be given from Sony India Pvt. Ltd., the office where her husband worked could not be given to her, because the applicants are objecting for the same. She alleged physical and mental harassment by the applicants. They also threatened to kill her HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH and her minor daughter. Therefore, on her report offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. has been registered against the applicants.
6. During the course of the investigation, the statements of Pooja and her father Harhar Tiwari and neighbour Chandramohan indicate the commission of the crime, therefore, after due investigation charge sheet has been filed against the applicants.
7. On behalf of the applicants, it is contended that the marriage of Deepak was a love marriage performed with Pooja. Earlier Pooja complained to the Police Station Kotwali, Damoh through the police helpline. Subsequently, the complainant and the applicants came to a settlement. Her 'Stridhan' was returned and she did not want to prosecute the case. Therefore, the matter was closed. It is also contended that subsequently, after the death of her husband Deepak and as there was no nomination, a letter was issued by Soni India Pvt. Ltd on 19.10.2015, addressed to father, mother of the deceased Deepak and wife Pooja to file authorization, so that the full and final payment of Provident Fund can be made.
8. Subsequently, Soni India Pvt. Ltd further wrote a letter to the applicant no.1 Radhakrishan Dubey stating that Pooja has HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH asked for full and final payment of the dues of her deceased husband. To expedite the matter, the Company requested to produce succession certificate within 10 days of the receiving of the memo, failing which the management will be constrained to deposit the gratuity amount in the office of the Commissioner appointed under payment of Gratuity Act.
9. It is also contended that the complainant lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police, Sagar alleging that she was 7 months pregnant at the time of the death of her husband. Later, she gave birth to a baby girl. The parents of her husband and brother-in-law of her husband have been creating problems and are opposing the disbursement of Provident Fund to her. This application moved on 24.02.2016. It is also contended that there was no harassment at all. The report of the SHO Mahila Thana, Sagar dated 02.04.2016 indicates that the dispute was with regard to withdraw of the provident fund amount lying with the Soni India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, FIR lodged on 09.04.2016. Applicants also placed reliance in the cases of Preeti Guta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741, Monju Roy and others vs. State of West Bengal (2015) 13 SCC, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Smt. Arti @ Madhvi vs. State of M.P. decided on 22.01.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.6747/2016 and Sandeep Singh Bais @ Ashu @ others vs. State of M.P. and another decided on 09.03.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.3658/2016.
10. On behalf of the respondent-State, vehemently opposed the application and contended that the respondent no.2 has made the complaint and the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. prima facie constitute offence. The harassment has been caused to the respondent no.2 by the accused persons. Therefore, prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.
11. On behalf of respondent no.2, the application is opposed vehemently and contended that the applicants are the relatives of the husband of the complainant. It is also contended that she is not getting any provident fund, not only that when the respondent no.2 went to live in her marital house with the child, her life was made miserable and she was thrown out of the house along with the minor child. It is also contended that the applicant no.3 Rajesh Tiwari thrown her out of the house, thereby committed mental and physical cruelty. It is also alleged that she and her daughter has been threatened of their life. They caused criminal intimidation.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
12. Perused the record.
13. It would be better to understand the provision of Section 498-A before elucidating reasons, Section 498-A of I.P.C. reads as under:-
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her 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 purpose 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."
14. The explanation - (a) defines 'cruelty' which includes a willful conduct of the accused, who assaults on a woman and offends her dignity even mental torture or abnormal behavour may amount to cruelty or harassment. Mental cruelty of course, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH varies from person to person depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one's life.
15. The word 'cruelty' has been explained in the Section to attract Section 498-A explanation-A and explanation - B has been provided. 'Cruelty' is a relative term. Sporadic incident of ill-treatment by the members of husband family attracts the definition of cruelty.
16. In this case, there is no vague allegations by the complainant, she clearly indicates that when she went to the matrimonial house along with her minor child, she was ill- treated and thrown away from the house. Other incidents which are incidental to the non-disbursement of provident fund of her husband has also been mentioned, but it cannot be said that only for the non-payment of or non-disbursement of provident fund, she lodged the report.
17. Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance in different case laws referred earlier, but the circumstances reveal in the case do not attract the same in the present case. There has been no false implication nor it seems that the distant relatives are roped in, there is no vague allegations but the allegations HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH are specific of causing criminal intimidation and throwing her out of the house. Therefore, it would not appropriate to hold that the applicants have been dragged into the criminal case.
18. More so, this Court would not embark on an enquiry at this preliminary stage to analyze the preliminary evidence available on record. The preliminary evidence disclose a reliable case. Therefore, there cannot be a definite finding about truthfulness or veracity of the allegations at this stage. These are matters which can be examined only by the Court concerned after the entire material is produced before it on a thorough investigation and after the evidence is led.
19. With the above facts and circumstances, this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Sushil Kumar Palo) Judge RJ Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 2018.08.14 10:26:58 +05'30'