Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Narayan vs Sushila Devi on 27 January, 2016
1 Mcrc.1429.2010
Prem Narayan and others Vs. Sushila Devi
27.01.2016
Shri J.S. Rathore, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Umesh Kumar Bohare, counsel for respondent.
Inherent powers are invoked for quashment of the Criminal Complaint Case No.1719/2009 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind (M.P.). It has been registered alleging offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC after recording the statements of the complainant and supportive evidence of witnesses.
The petitioner No.1 is the husband whereas petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of the respondent and the respondent is the wife of petitioner No.1. Marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent took place on 10.12.2006 at Bhind. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be member of the Indian Army. A daughter was born out of the wedlock whereafter certain disputes arose between the husband and wife. It is alleged in the complaint filed by the respondent/wife dated 05.03.2009 that the husband and her in-laws started demanding motorcycle and a buffalo as dowry. It is further alleged that the respondent/wife was assaulted to coerce her to bring dowry. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 02.12.2008 the husband and the in-laws came to the parental house of the respondent/wife, snatched the infant daughter from her and took away some clothes. In the process, it is alleged that the 2 Mcrc.1429.2010 Prem Narayan and others Vs. Sushila Devi respondent was pushed as a result of which she fell down and sustained some minor injuries. It is stated that the police report was attempted to be lodged but to no avail as the police refused to register any offence. This led the respondent filing written complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 27.02.2009 which also did not bear any fruit, thereby compelling the respondent to file the criminal complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. on 05.03.2009 before the court of competent criminal jurisdiction alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 452, 498A, 323/34 of IPC. The Court after recording the statements of the complainant and the supportive witnesses, by order dated 08.10.2009 took cognizance and registered the complaint but only in connection with Section 498A of IPC.
The petitioner No.1 being husband and the petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 being father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively are before this Court assailing the entire prosecution launched against them by the respondent/wife under Section 498A of IPC.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. It is submitted that the present impugned piece of prosecution is an act of retaliation which has been initiated by the respondent/wife being piqued on receiving the legal notice dated 08.12.2008 and also after receiving the notice of the court cases filed by the petitioners against respondent as Criminal Complaint 3 Mcrc.1429.2010 Prem Narayan and others Vs. Sushila Devi under Section 504, 506 and 406 of IPC on 23.12.2008, registered as Criminal Case No.469/2009 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Second, Itawah (U.P.). The other case filed on 03.01.2009 by the petitioners against the respondent/wife is under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of Civil Judge, Civil Division Itawah (U.P.) which has been registered as Case No.04/2009 HMA.
In the factual background of the above-said two cases launched by the petitioners against respondent, it is submitted that soon after receiving the notices of said two cases, impugned piece of prosecution has been launched. It is submitted that the impugned prosecution is thus an abuse of the process of the Court merely to give vent to the animus nursed by the respondent against the petitioners. It is ultimately contended that impugned piece of prosecution is in fact persecution and therefore inherent powers are sought to be invoked to quash the same.
After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, it is evident from the record that the impugned prosecution which has led to registration of an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC in shape of criminal complaint was filed on 05.03.2009 immediately after the respondent/wife received the notices of two cases filed by the petitioners against her in shape of Criminal Case No.469/2009 [504, 506 and 406 of IPC] on 23.12.2008 and the other being petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for 4 Mcrc.1429.2010 Prem Narayan and others Vs. Sushila Devi restitution of conjugal rights.
Viewing the impugned complaint from a different angle, it is to be seen from its perusal which is Annexure P-7 that the cruelty being alleged in the said complaint took place immediately after the marriage which took place in December, 2006. Thus, it can safely be inferred that the cruelty started sometime in the end of 2007. Yet the complaint was made sometime in the March, 2009, nearly one and a half years after the cause arose. More so, though allegation of dowry demand is alleged in the shape of motorcycle and buffalo, however, the allegation of inflicting mental cruelty of such magnitude which may constitute an offence under Section 498A appears to be missing.
For attracting the provisions of Section 498A of IPC, the cruelty which is required to be alleged and proved should be of such nature which prevents the wife from cohabitation at matrimonial home and which may fall within clauses (a) and (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A of IPC, reproduced below:-
"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
5 Mcrc.1429.2010 Prem Narayan and others Vs. Sushila Devi valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." The cruelty alleged in the complaint is not of such nature that the same led to an apprehension of grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the respondent.
From the above discussion, it is evident that the impugned prosecution is more of retaliatory nature. The impugned complaint lacks basic ingredients of Section 498A of IPC besides the same being vitiated by the vice of having been commenced to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners.
The impugned prosecution appears more to be in the form of persecution initiated by abusing the process of the court. To prevent said persecution to continue, this Court is compelled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the Criminal Complaint Case No.1719/2009 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind (M.P.) and all the criminal proceedings arising out of the same against the petitioners under Section 498A of IPC stand quashed.
No cost.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge pd