Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neha Lakhera vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8568
1 M.Cr.C. No. 18754 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18754 of 2023
NEHA LAKHERA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Basant Kumar Chaturvedi - Advocate for applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.219/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali Vidisha, District Vidisha (M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
2. The complainant was not being served, therefore, applicant was permitted to serve her by publication. Applicant has also filed the copy of newspaper as well as an affidavit in support of publication. In spite of that none appears for complainant/respondent No.2. Even the case was adjourned on 28.03.2025. Since none appears for respondent No.2, therefore, she is proceeded ex parte and the case is heard finally.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:06:28 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8568 2 M.Cr.C. No. 18754 of 2023
3. According to the prosecution case, respondent No.2 consumed poisonous substance and accordingly, she was admitted in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. The Dehati Nalisi was recorded in which she stated that in the year 2005 she got married to Sunil Jain and thereafter was blessed with one boy child who was born in the year 2010. Her husband is the owner of a petrol pump. From the year 2014, a love relationship has been developed between Sunil Jain and applicant and since then, applicant is claiming that she is the wife of Sunil Jain and respondent no.2 is his keep etc. As a result, she went in depression and accordingly, she consumed poisonous substance. Accordingly, Police registered an offence under Section 498A of IPC.
4. Challenging the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent No.2 has stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that earlier she was married to Dheeraj Saini and is having two children from her first husband, namely, Kajal and Sahil. After her divorce with Dheeraj Saini, she married Sunil Jain in the year 2005 and was blessed with another child in the year 2010. Her husband is the owner of a petrol pump. In the year 2014, a love relationship developed between her husband and applicant. Applicant is claiming that she is the wife of Sunil Jain and even her husband was also claiming the same thing and on these issues both were harassing her. Ultimately, on 14.03.2020, she consumed poisonous substance. Thereafter, she was shifted to District Hospital Vidisha from where she was referred to Bhopal where she was treated and after recovering she has come back to her parental home. It is submitted that since applicant is alleged to be the girlfriend of Sunil Jain, therefore, she cannot be said to be a member of family of Sunil Jain and thus she cannot be prosecuted under Section 498 A of IPC. To buttress his contentions, counsel for applicant has relied upon the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:06:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8568 3 M.Cr.C. No. 18754 of 2023 judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 757 as well as in the case of Dechamma I.M. @ Dechamma Koushik Vs. The State of Karnataka And Another decided on 04.12.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No.3421 of 2022.
5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent/State. It is submitted by Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor, that it is clear from the statement of father of complainant that the complainant consumed poisonous substance in her parental home. It is also clear that Sunil Jain as well as applicant were claiming that applicant is the wife of Sunil Jain, therefore, it is a disputed question of fact as to whether applicant is the girlfriend of Sunil Jain or she is the wife of Sunil Jain. If Sunil Jain has married applicant also, then she would certainly come within the definition of relative of the husband.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. If the statements of complainant Smt. Aarti Jain, her daughter Kajal, her son Sahil and other witnesses are considered, then it is clear that respondent No.2 had claimed that she got married to Sunil Jain in the year 2005 and Sushant Jain was born in the year 2010. From the year 2014, husband of respondent No.2, namely, Sunil Jain developed love relationship with applicant. It is alleged in the police statements that applicant is claiming herself to be the wife of Sunil Jain and Sunil Jain is also claiming that applicant is his wife and for these reasons, respondent No.2 was under depression.
8. Now, the only question for consideration is as to what is the legal effect of claim made by applicant to the effect that she is the wife of Sunil Jain?
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:06:28 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8568 4 M.Cr.C. No. 18754 of 2023
9. It is the case of respondent No.2 herself that she got married to Sunil Jain in the year 2005 and that marriage is still subsisting, therefore, even if Sunil Jain had married applicant, still the said marriage cannot be said to be a valid marriage during subsistence of marriage of Sunil Jain with respondent No.2. Therefore, at the most, it can be said that either applicant is the keep or girlfriend of husband of respondent No.2. The case in hand is duly covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha (supra) because it was held that the word `paramour' and the `concubine' stand on the same footing and it has been held as under:-
"17. Herein, as noticed hereinbefore, relationship of the appellant with the husband of the first informant, is said to have been existing from before the marriage. Indisputably they lived separately. For all intent and purport the husband was also living at a separate place. The purported torture is said to have been inflicted by the husband upon the first informant either at her in-law's place or at her parents' place. There is no allegation that the appellant had any role to play in that regard.
18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a "relative". The word "relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise."
10. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that even if applicant is stated to be a concubine or girlfriend of Sunil Jain, still she would not fall within the definition of relative because even if Sunil Jain has married applicant during the subsistence of his marriage with respondent No.2, then such marriage would not result in legal marriage & applicant cannot be said to be legally married wife of Sunil Jain. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:06:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8568 5 M.Cr.C. No. 18754 of 2023 that applicant cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No.219/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali Vidisha, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 498- A of IPC and further proceedings in RCT No.385/2020 pending before the Court of JMFC, Vidisha (M.P.) are hereby quashed qua applicant and applicant is discharged.
11. Application succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 4/22/2025 6:06:28 PM