Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Narayan Sharma vs State Of M.P. on 17 February, 2016
1 M.Cr.C. Nos. 8029/2013 & 8633/2013
Premnarayan Sharma & Others vs State of M.P. & Anr.
in M.Cr.C. Nos.8029/2013
Vikas Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
in M.Cr.C. Nos.8633/2013
17/02/2016 Shri R.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Mohd. Irshad, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No. 1.
None for respondent No. 2 though served.
Since both the petitions are connected with the same crime number, therefore, they are decided by the present common order.
2. The applicants have challenged the registration of crime No.259/2013 registered at police station Kotwali, Dist. Shivpuri for offence u/s. 498-A r/w section 34 of IPC.
3. Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant Vikas Sharma in M.Cr.C. Nos. 8633/2013 is husband of the complainant whereas the applicants Prem Narayan Sharma and Smt. Shobha Sharma in M.Cr.C. Nos. 8029/2013 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant whereas the applicants Prashant Sharma and Kapil Sharma are brother- in-law of the complainant. The complainant had lodged an FIR on 16/04/2013 at police station Kotwali, Dist. Shivpuri that she was married with the applicant Vikas Sharma on 04/05/2003 and thereafter in last 10 years she was harassed for dowry demand, etc. Sometimes she was ousted from the house and 2 M.Cr.C. Nos. 8029/2013 & 8633/2013 sometimes she was beaten by the applicants. She has specifically mentioned that on 03/04/2013 after beating she was ousted bare hand from the house except she had the clothes on her person. After due investigation, the charge sheet has also been filed by the police.
4. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the testimony of the complainant and her witnesses cannot be discarded at this stage.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Anr. Vs. Monica "{(2009) 10 SCC 604}" and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao "{(2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 1123}"
to show that what are the ingredients of section 498-A of IPC and after emphasizing of the fact of this case, it was submitted that no offence under section 498-A of IPC is made out against the applicants. However these judgments of the Apex Court were not passed at the stage of section 482 of Cr.P.C. before trial, hence, such minutes appreciation of evidence cannot be done at this stage.3 M.Cr.C. Nos. 8029/2013 & 8633/2013
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. "{AIR 2010 SC 3363}" & Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. "{AIR 2013 SC 181}" in which it is held that the allegation as to active involvement of the accused is missing in FIR then mere casual reference of their names in the FIR, they cannot be prosecuted. Both the aforesaid cases are related to the accused persons who are relatives of the husband of the complainant residing at a distance place and they did not have any opportunity to interfere in day to day family life of the complainant and her husband. In the present case, the applicant Vikas Sharma is the husband of the complainant and the remaining applicants were residing with the Vikas Sharma and the complainant in the same house, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that there was no active participation of the applicants in harassing the complainant.
7. Looking to the factual position of this case law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) & Geeta Mehrotra (supra) cannot be applied in the present case.
4 M.Cr.C. Nos. 8029/2013 & 8633/2013
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chandralekha vs. State of Rajasthan, "{2013(1) MPWN SN 48}" in which it is alleged that if extremely vague general allegations are made against the applicant in FIR then FIR may be quashed. In the present case, if the allegations made in the FIR and case diary statements of the various witnesses are perused then it would be apparent that the complainant gave details of harassment done by the applicants in last 10 years of her marital life and it cannot be said that such allegations are vague or general in nature, hence, the applicants did not get any advantage of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chandralekha (supra).
9. When a wife lodges FIR of offence under section 498-A of IPC then it should not be taken very lightly. If a woman who had 10 years married life had lodged such an FIR then it is for the applicants to give answer to her grievances. If after residing for few days, the complainant had left the house of the applicants and suddenly appeared in the year of 2013 then the applicant Vikas Sharma would have filed a petition under section 9 or 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act or a 5 M.Cr.C. Nos. 8029/2013 & 8633/2013 notice should have been given to that effect, but the applicants did not file any documents to show that for a longer period the complainant resided with her parents or she did not turn up to the house of the applicants.
10. Purpose of provisions under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is given so that the innocent person should not be made liable to face the trial, but it does not mean that a culprit may take the advantage of technicality. In this connection judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Surendra Kori, "{(2012) 10 SCC 155}" may be perused in which it is mentioned that power under section 482 of Cr.P.C has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. While using the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. the High Court should not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Similarly, in a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
"{(2012) 13 SCC 614}" in which it is laid down that where allegation did not disclose prima facie case and the prosecution of the accused would result in abuse of process then proceedings can be quashed either at early stage or at later stage, but this extra ordinary power available to the High Court needs to be exercised carefully and sparingly, it cannot 6 M.Cr.C. Nos. 8029/2013 & 8633/2013 be used for quashing a legitimate prosecution.
11. Under these circumstances, in the light of aforesaid judgments, if the factual position of the case is examined then at this stage, appreciation of evidence cannot be done, the testimony of the complainant cannot be discarded at this stage and it cannot be said that no offence under section 498-A of IPC is made out against any of the applicants. Under these circumstances, it is not a case in which registration of crime and consequent charge sheet may be quashed. Hence, both the petitions under section 482 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant- husband Vikas Sharma and applicants Premnarayan Sharma, Smt. Shobha Sharma, Prashant Sharma & Kapil Sharma are hereby dismissed at motion stage.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.Gupta)
Durgekar* Judge