Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Kalpna Soni vs State Of M.P. on 2 May, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2017 MP 14
Author: G.S. Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
1 MCRC.7520/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7520/2012
Smt. Kalpana Soni & Ors.
-Vs-
State of M.P. & Anr.
________________________________________________
Shri Prashant Sharma, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
no.1/State.
________________________________________________
ORDER
(02/05/2017) This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 12/09/2012 passed by I st Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.276/2012 by which the order dated 02/05/2012 passed by JMFC, Dabra in Criminal Case No.207/2011 has been affirmed.
By order dated dated 02/05/2012, the JMFC, Dabra has framed charges against the applicants for offences under Sections 420/34 and 498-A of IPC.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that a written complaint was made by the complainant/respondent no.2 on 01/12/2010 to the effect that she was married to one Sanjeev Soni on 07/05/2009. At the time of the settlement of the marriage, the applicants came to the house of the complainant and persuaded the father of the complainant to marry the complainant with Sanjeev. The marriage was settled and she was married with Sanjeev on 07/05/2009 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the 2 MCRC.7520/2012 complainant had given sufficient dowry to Sanjeev and his family members. After the marriage, the complainant started living in her matrimonial house alongwith her husband and the applicants. On 12/05/2009, her husband informed that he is going to attend a marriage in Lalitpur and came back on 14/05/2009. Thereafter, on 29/05/2009, the complainant came back to her parents house alongwith her brother and on 08/06/2009, the husband of the complainant informed her on phone that he is going to Jhansi to attend a marriage and, therefore, the complainant should also come to Jhansi alongwith her brother. She went to Jhansi where he met with her husband. Thereafter, the complainant and Sanjeev attended the marriage and, from there, the complainant and Sanjeev came back to Dabra in the evening of 09/06/2009. On 09/06/2009 itself, at about 11:00 in the night, Sanjeev went to Delhi by informing the complainant that some material is being loaded at Delhi in a truck and, therefore, he is going to Delhi to help his brother-in-law and, thereafter, he came back directly to Tikamgarh. After about five months of the marriage, the husband of the complainant informed her that prior to the marriage, he had met with a scooter accident as a result of which he had sustained injuries and after the injuries were healed, some black spots have occurred on his legs and for the treatment of the black spots, he generally goes to Delhi. In the month of April, 2010 when the brother of the complainant came to Tikamgarh to take the complainant, at that time the husband of the complainant informed that as he is having swelling in his legs, therefore, she may take him to Delhi. From Delhi, they came to Gwalior and, thereafter, an operation was done at JA Hospital, Gwalior. At Gwalior, the doctor informed the complainant that the husband of the complainant is suffering from Liver Cyrrohsis and only because of the infection, he is having swelling in his leg. On 3 MCRC.7520/2012 enquiry, the husband of the complainant informed that in the year 2007, he had suffered from Chikangunia and had a blood vomiting. At that time, the complainant came to know that the husband is suffering from Liver Cyrrohsis for the last several years and is serious for the last several years. On 12/05/2009, her husband had in fact had gone to Delhi by giving a false reason that he is going to Lalitpur to attend the marriage. Thus, it was alleged that the applicants, by suppressing the fact that the husband of the complainant is suffering from Liver Cirrohsis, got her married to Sanjeev. In spite of that in order to perform her duties as a wife, she continued to live with Sanjeev but, thereafter, the applicants as well as her husband started pressurizing the complainant to bring money from her parents for getting her husband treated. When the complainant refused to do so, then she was harassed and beaten by the applicants. They used to say that only after the marriage the physical condition of the husband of the complainant has deteriorated and the complainant is a witch and would kill her husband. The applicants also used to say that in case if she does not bring money from her father, then either she should consume sulphas or should die by hanging. She was forced to take her husband to her parents house at Dabra and she was forced to get her husband treated at Gwalior. In the night of the festival Karwachauth, the complainant came to Dabra alongwith her husband and the applicant Vikash @ Vicky, and the husband of the complainant was got admitted in the hospital at Gwalior. It is also alleged that on the day of Diwali, the husband of the complainant had dashed the head of the complainant against the wall for twice and had said that since the father of the complainant is Tahsildar, therefore, she should take money from him. It was also felt by the complainant that the applicants had collected money from the father of the complainant in the name of the 4 MCRC.7520/2012 treatment of the husband but in fact they had utilized the said amount for their personal use. After Diwali, when she took her husband to the hospital at Gwalior, then she was advised by the doctors that she should take him to Delhi. On the information of the complainant, the applicants no.2 and 3 came to Delhi where it was informed by the doctors that the transplantation of the liver of the husband of the complainant is the only solution. It was also informed that the husband of the complainant is suffering from Hepatitis-B and she came back to her matrimonial house after getting her husband discharged from the hospital. On 24/11/2010, the husband of the complainant, the applicant no.2 and the applicant no.5 insisted that the complainant should talk to her father and should arrange for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- immediately and she should also call her brother so that the blood can be given to the husband of the complainant. When the complainant started crying, then the husband of the complainant as well as the applicants no.2 and 5 got annoyed and alleged that the complainant is just showing off. The father of the complainant also went to Tikamgarh and tried to convince the husband of the complainant as well as the applicants no.2 and 5 but they did not agree and they instructed the complainant that she should go alongwith her father to Dabra and she should get the amount deposited in the bank account, otherwise she should not come back. It was further alleged that the applicant no.5 took possession of all the documents pertaining to the marriage as well as other articles and allowed the complainant to go to her parents house along with some sarees only. When the complainant requested her husband and the applicants no.2 and 5 that as they are continuously harassing her, therefore, she cannot live with them any more and, therefore, they should return the dowry as well as Stri Dhan but all the three persons clearly 5 MCRC.7520/2012 extended the threat that now nothing would be returned. Accordingly, the complaint was made by the complainant against her husband as well as the applicants.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that from the FIR, it is clear that no cruelty took place at Dabra, therefore, the police did not have any jurisdiction to register the FIR as well as the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is further submitted that only vague and omnibus allegations have been made against the applicants and even if the entire allegations are accepted in toto, then no case warranting framing of charge under Sections 498-A,420,34 of IPC is made out and a tendency is increasing in the society to falsely implicate the near and dear relatives of the husband.
Per contra, it is submitted by the State counsel that specific allegations have been made against the applicants. It is specifically alleged that they suppressed the fact that the husband of the applicant is suffering from liver cyrrohsis and pursuaded the family members of the complainant to marry Sanjeev. Thus, it is clear that such an act of the applicants would come within the meaning of cheating as defined under Section 415 of CrPC. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the applicants that they were continuously demanding and were compelling the complainant to bring money from her father for the treatment of her husband. The complainant was even beaten because of non- fulfillment of the demand of money. It is further submitted that from the FIR, it is clear that the applicants forced the complainant to take her husband to Dabra for getting him treated at Gwalior and, while doing so, the applicant no.2 also came alongwith the complainant and her husband to leave them at Dabra. Since the complainant was forced to take her husband to Dabra for the treatment, therefore, this act of the applicants cannot be seen in isolation with the allegations 6 MCRC.7520/2012 made against them and, therefore, it is clear that a part of cause of action has also arisen at Dabra. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that the cruelty is a continuous offence and if a married lady is compelled to live in her parents house because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, then it would also amount to a cruelty giving cause of action to the police station where the complainant is residing in her parents house.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
From the FIR, it is clear that it is specifically alleged that the applicants came to the house of the complainant and pursueded the parents of the complainant to marry the complainant with Sanjeev. The fact that Sanjeeev is suffering from liver cyrrohsis, which is a serious decease, was suppressed from the complainant and her family members.
Prima facie, the suppression of the decease with which the groom is suffering may amount to cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC.
Section 415 of IPC reads as under:-
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
Thus, it is clear that where even a person induces another to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
7 MCRC.7520/2012If the allegation of suppression of fact that the groom is suffering from a serious decease like liver cyrrohsis is concerned, then it is clear that had the applicants disclosed this fact to the complainant or her parents, then there was every possibility that they would not have agreed to marry the complainant with Sanjeev. Thus, the suppression of serious decease, with which the groom is suffering, and inducing the complainant or her parents to get the complainant married with Sanjeev prima facie amounts to cheat.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing charge under Section 420,34 of IPC.
So far as the other allegations with regard to the cruelty is concerned, specific roles have been assigned to the applicants. It is not a case where only vague and omnibus allegations have been made. It is specifically alleged that the applicants were harassing and treating the complainant with cruelty for demand of money to meet the expenses of the treatment of her husband Sanjeev.
Section 498-A of IPC 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 wilful 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.]"
From the plain reading of Section, it is clear that if a 8 MCRC.7520/2012 women is harassed with a view to force her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or in amount of failure by her or any person related to her to meet said demand would amount to cruelty. For making a person liable under Section 498-A of IPC, it is not required that the demand should be in relation to the marriage or that demand should be a dowry demand. Thus, even if the demand is meant for getting the expenses for treatment of the husband of the complainant and harassment of the complainant because of non-fulfillment of such demand, then such an act of the applicant would squarely falls within the purview of Section 498-A of IPC.
It is next contended by the counsel for the applicants that as no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial court at Dabra, therefore, the Trial of the applicants at Dabra is bad and is liable to be quashed.
In the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that the applicants were demanding money from the complainant to meet out the expenses of treatment of Sanjeev. In continuation of that harassment, it is alleged in the FIR that they compelled the complainant to take her husband to Dabra so that she can get him treated at Gwalior. It is also alleged that the applicant no.2 brought the complainant and her husband to Dabra.
The Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar reported in (2011) 11 SCC 301 reads as under:-
"18. We have already adverted to the details made by the appellant in the complaint. In view of the specific assertion by the appellant-wife about the ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of the husband and his relatives at Ranchi and of the fact that because of their action, she was taken to her parental home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, we hold that in view of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence in this case was a continuing one having 9 MCRC.7520/2012 been committed in more local areas and one of the local areas being Gaya, the learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case instituted therein. In other words, the offence was a continuing one and the episode at Gaya was only a consequence of continuing offence of harassment of ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, clause (c) of Section 178 is attracted. Further, from the allegations in the complaint, it appears to us that it is a continuing offence of ill-treatment and humiliation meted out to the appellant in the hands of all the accused persons and in such continuing offence, on some occasion all had taken part and on other occasion one of the accused, namely, husband had taken part, therefore, undoubtedly clause (c) of Section 178 of the Code is clearly attracted."
It is further clear that the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial house and was forced to live in her parents house at Dabra. Compelling a married women to leave her matrimonial house and to live along with her parents because of non-fulfillment of demand of any property or valuable security may also amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of IPC.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Sunita and Others reported in (1995) 4 Crimes 735 has held as under:-
"10. I am of the view that the wife having been left at her parents' place by the accused persons either with the object to meet the demand of dowry or because of wife's failure to meet the said demand, in both the cases the act of the accused person comes within the mischief of cruelty and in both the situation harassment continues.
11. Once it is held that the harassment continues at the place of residence of her father where the complainant is residing at the time of filing of the complaint, I am firmly of the view that the offence is a continuing one and in view of Section 178(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which inter alia provides that where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
12. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of 10 MCRC.7520/2012 Allahabad High Court in Vijai Ratan Sharma and others. v. State of U.P. and another, wherein the learned judge has held as follows:-
"Rather, this harassment seems to be continued one. It started when demand of dowry was made outside Ghaziabad and it has continued when she is not being called from Ghaziabad and she has been left there in order to get the dowry. So the offence continues to be committed or it may be possible to say that the offence was partly committed outside Ghaziabad when she was mal-treated and it continues to be at Ghaziabad where she has been left and is not being called. So it seems that the Courts at Ghaziabad should have jurisdiction to try the offence of cruelty.""
Thus, if the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the light of the allegations made in the FIR, it is clear that one of the applicants not only came to Dabra in order leave the complainant and her husband at Dabra but the complainant was forced to leave her matrimonial house and has been forced to live in her parents house, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the Trial Court at Dabra has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Further the applicants have been charged for offence under Section 420 of IPC. The allegations are that they came to the house of the complainant for settlement of marriage. Therefore, also it is clear that offence under Section 420 of IPC took place at Dabra.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that sufficient material is available against the applicants warranting their prosecution for offence under Section 498-A,420,34 of IPC.
Thus, the application sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
AKS Judge