Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Ali Siddiqui vs Reshma on 14 February, 2012
M.Cr.C. No.11140/2009
14.02.2012
Shri Vijay Nayak, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri G.P.Kekre, Advocate for the respondent
No.1.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2.
The instant application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicants against the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the JMFC Satna (Shipra Patel) in Complaint Case No.350/2009 by which a complaint was registered against the applicants for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 has filed a complaint before the JMFC Satna to the effect that she is a wife of applicant No.1. Applicants No.2 and 3 are the parents of applicant No.1. Applicants No.4, 5 and 6 are the sisters of applicant No.1. Applicant No.7 is grand daughter of applicant No.2, whereas applicant No.8 is son-in-law of applicant No.2. All of them were residing with applicant No.1 at Jodhpur. The marriage of respondent No.1 took place with applicant No.1 in the year 2001. The applicants were harassing the respondent No.1. They were not providing proper food to her. They used to assault her and to confine her in a room. They were demanding a sum of Rs.1 lakh from her father. On 25.2.2008, applicants No.1 and 4 took her to Satna and they left her at Satna railway station. Ultimately, she reached to her parents' house. At railway station Satna, applicants No.1 and 4 again warned her that if she would not provide a sum of Rs.1 lakh, then she has no space in the house of applicant No.1. On 26.2.2008 applicant No.3 also threatened the respondent No.1 with demand of Rs.1 lakh. Thereafter the respondent No.1 had lodged an FIR at Mahila Police Station Satna on 26.2.2008, but no action was taken by the police, therefore she had lodged a complaint against the applicants which was registered by the JMFC Satna vide order dated 18.11.2008.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is accepted by the complainant before the trial Court that she lived with her parents for three years in past, and therefore she was not willing to visit to her husband's house. However, a divorce took place between the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.1. The copy of that talaqnama is submitted at Annexure A-4. Also affidavits executed by the respondent No.1 and her father are also annexed at Annexure A-5 and A-6. One affidavit is also submitted, which is executed by one Notary Yashwant Singh Sankla to clear the date of various documents executed by the respondent No.1 and her father. By such documents, it is clear that applicant No.1 has divorced the respondent No.1, and therefore the complaint was lodged as a counter blast. The complaint is baseless, which is filed only to harass the applicants unnecessarily. Secondly, it is also submitted that if any grievance was there to the respondent No.1 against her husband and parents- in-laws, then there was no need to implicate the applicants No.4 to 8 as a party in the case. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Preeti Gupta & another Vs. State of Jharkhand & another", [(2010) 7 SCC 667] and the order of this Court in the case of "Dashrath P. Bundela Vs. State of MP", [2012 (1) MPHT 196]. Therefore, it is prayed that trial pending before the JMFC Satna may be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the talaqnama and other affidavits appear to be forged documents. The respondent No.1 signs various documents in English, and therefore it was not at all required that she would have affixed her thumb impressions on the affidavits. She has stated before the trial Court that when she was unconscious for sometime, it appears that her thumb impressions were taken on various papers because when she became conscious, she found that ink was there in her thumb. Under such circumstances, at present it cannot be said that respondent No.1 is a divorced wife of applicant No.1. The testimony of respondent No.1 and other witnesses cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Since the applicants No.1 and 4 had threatened the respondent No.1 at railway station Satna, therefore it is a continuous crime, hence the JMFC Satna has jurisdiction to hear the case. Since all the applicants were residing with applicant No.1 in a house and they were involved in harassing the respondent No.1, therefore the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) and this Court in the case of Dashrath P. Bundela (supra) will not be applicable in the present case. It is submitted that the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be dismissed.
On consideration of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the documents filed before this Court, it is not established beyond doubt that talaq took place between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised an appropriate question that when respondent No.1 is a literate and puts her signature in English, then what was the necessity to put thumb impression on various documents. Secondly, at the time of dissolution of muslim marriage, payment of maihar is an essential ingredient. There is nothing in those documents about the maihar. On the contrary, it appears from the affidavit of Notary Yashwant Singh Sankla that affidavits were executed in a hurried manner so that Notary affixed rubber seal of date 10.2.2007 whereas documents were executed in the year 2008. Under such circumstances, the documents produced by the applicants relating to talaq are not conclusive, and therefore at present Court cannot rely such documents. It is for the applicants to prove talaq beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court. In such circumstances, the evidence given by the complainant and her witnesses cannot be brushed aside.
As far as implication of applicants No.4 to 8 is concerned, the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) and this Court in the case of Dashrath P. Bundela (supra) are not be applicable in the present case, because it is clearly alleged that the applicant No.1 was residing with his parents as well as three sisters, one brother-in-law and one niece. It is categorically alleged by the complainant that all of them were involved in harassment of the complainant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant is implicating the distant relatives of applicant No.1 though they were not involved in the crime. In such circumstances, the evidence given by the complainant and her witnesses cannot be ignored for the applicants No.4 to 8 even. At present there is no ground established by the applicants so that trial pending before the JMFC Satna may be quashed.
Jurisdiction of the Court is not challenged by the applicants, and therefore it is not necessary to observe anything to that point.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not acceptable. No inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be invoked. Consequently, the application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the applicants is hereby dismissed.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari