Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravikant Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 673
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
S.B : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
M.CR.C. NO.29224/2018
Ravikant Mishra and others.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & another.
PRESENT :
Shri Sankalp Kochar learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri S.S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1-State.
None for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
(6.5.2020) Accused/petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short ''the Code'') to set aside the FIR registered in connection with Crime No.12/2018 at Police Station Mahila Thana Satna, District Satna, for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case, in nutshell, are that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before Mahila Thana Satna on 5.5.2018. It is alleged that marriage of respondent No.2 and applicant No.1 was solemnized on 5.3.2017 at Manglam Resort, Utaili, District Satna according to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, she was resided with accused/petitioners at her matrimonial house.
2Accused/petitioner No.2 is father-in-law and accused/petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law of respondent No.2. For the first time, respondent No.2 resided for four days only at her matrimonial house. Second time, she reached at her matrimonial house, then accused/petitioners demanded Rs.10 lacs as dowry, but due to non-fulfillment of dowry, they tortured and humiliated her. The accused/ petitioner No.1 was doing job at Delhi, so she also gone to Delhi and resided with accused/petitioner No.1 at Delhi. Accused/petitioner No.1 humiliated and tortured with regard to demand of dowry of Rs.10 lacs. Thereafter, she returned to her parental house. On 28.4.2018, she went at her matrimonial house at Sangram Colony, Satna, Ward No.23, Police Station Kolgawan, the accused/ petitioner No.2 abused her in filthy language and ousted her from her matrimonial house. Thereafter, she came to her parental house. She tried for amicable settlement, but accused/petitioners are rigid of making demand of Rs.10 lacs as dowry. Thereafter, she reported the matter to the Police Station against the accused/petitioners.
3: Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits that accused/petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Respondent No.2 committed cruelty with accused/petitioner No.1 and his family members. Respondent No.2 refused to live with the accused/petitioner No.1, then accused/petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition on 14.3.2018 before Principal Judge Family Court, Satna. Respondent No.2 received notice of the divorce petition on 7.4.2018. Respondent No.2 appeared before the Family Court Satna on 1.5.2018 along with her lawyer. Despite numerous dates having been fixed by the Family Court for 3 mediation, but respondent No.2 refrained from appearing before the Family Court, Satna. After 1.5.2018, he lodged a false complaint. Respondents No. 2 & 3 are residing separately from accused/petitioner No.1. Respondents No. 2 & 3 are residing at Satna where accused/petitioner No.1 residing with the respondent No.2 at Noida and Mumbai after marriage where he is employed as Engineer. Accused/petitioners No.2 & 3 have been implicated on arbitrary and fanciful reasons by making omnibus allegations, even though the respondent No.2 has resided with accused/petitioner No.1 at Noida after her marriage and she has never resided with accused/petitioners No. 2 & 3 for more than 2 or 3 days and an artificial cause of action has been created on 28.4.2018. Respondent No.2 has filed this complaint as a counter blast to the divorce petition instituted by accused/petitioner No.1. FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 9 months which renders the entire prosecution story unreliable. So, there is abuse process of law, therefore, the FIR dated 5.5.2018, in connection with Crime No.12/2018 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Satna, District Satna, is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners relied upon the decisions in the case of Varala Bharath Kumar and another Vs. State of Telangana and another [(2017) 9 SCC 413], Rashmi Chopra Vs. State of U.P. (2019 SCC OnLine SC 620), Mohammad Haroon Ahmad & ors Vs. Smt. Shashista Parveen & State of Madhya Pradesh (M.Cr.C.No.3849/2013, decided on 15.2.2018), Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu & ors Vs. State of M.P. & another (M.Cr.C.No.3658/2016, decided on 9.3.2017) and Smt. Praveen Bano and ors. Vs. State 4 of M.P. and another (M.Cr.C.No.27336/ 2018, decided on 3.4.2019).
4: Learrned counsel for the respondent No.1-State submits that there is prima-facie material which is available on record, therefore, this is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5: Heard both the parties and perused the record.
6: This is a case of matrimonial dispute, therefore, it has to be seen as to how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.
7: It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley AIR 2011 SC 1090 that controverted documents or material of unimpeachable or sterling character may be considered while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also clear that this is a case of matrimonial dispute.
8: The Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 4019 has held as under:-
"This Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupak Gupta and ors. (2015) 3 SCC 424, 426: (AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 684) held as follows:
"At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find out whether a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because 5 the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not."
9: The Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 has held as under:-
"In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of being close relations of respondent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implicationssuch relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
10 : The Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & anothers Vs. State of Jharkhand & another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 has held as under:-
"28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-
"498-A. 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 6 years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,`cruelty' means:-
(a) any willful 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."
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
11 : The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014(8) SCC 273 has held as under:-
"4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand- mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. "Crime in India 2012 Statistics"
published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and 7 hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498-A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.
5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle between the lawmakers and the police and it seems that police has not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.P.C. It has not come out of its colonial image despite six decades of independence, it is largely considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of public. The need for caution in exercising the drastic power of arrest has been emphasized time and again by Courts but has not yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motive."
12 : The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has held as under:-
"20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein 8 with which we entirely agree that:
"12.There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts."
The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the Courts would not encourage such disputes." 13 : The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 as held as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reporduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within 9 the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
14 : In the light of aforesaid legal position. I would proceed to decide this petition.
15 : It is evident from the record that FIR was lodged on 5.5.2018. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded on 23.3.2018. It also reveals from the record that the accused/petitioner No.1 is husband of the respondent No.2. The accused/petitioner No.1 is doing job at Delhi and respondent No.2 is living with the accused/petitioner No.1 at Delhi. There is specific allegation against the accused/petitioner No.1 about demand of dowry and cruelty. It is true that accused/ petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 received notice of the said divorce petition. It is alleged that in divorce 10 petition, the respondent-wife committed cruelty with accused/petitioner No.1 and she did not want to lead matrimonial life with accused/petitioner No.1. Thereafter, she lodged the report, but it is evident that there is dispute between the accused/ petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, therefore, all the allegations will be proved during the trial. So, this is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked in regard to the accused/petitioner No.1. In view of the foregoing discussions, this petition so far as it relates to accused/petitioner No.1 is dismissed.
16 : So far as accused/petitioners No. 2 & 3 are concerned, it is clear that they reside at Satna. There is no specific allegation against these accused/petitioners about demand of dowry and cruelty. It is evident that accused/petitioner No.1 has filed a divorce petition on 14.3.2018 and respondent No.2 has received notice on 7.4.2018 and appeared before the Family Court on 1.5.2018, so there is no reason to go at the house of accused/petitioners No. 2 & 3 on 28.4.2018 at Satna where his husband was not present. This fact came to the knowledge of respondent No.2 that accused/petitioner No.1 had filed divorce petition on 14.3.2018, so there is no reason to go to the house of accused/petitioners No. 2 & 3 father-in-law and mother-in-law on 28.4.2018. During the investigation, police statement of respondent No.2 was recorded. It is evident from the police statement of respondent No.2 that she lastly resided with accused/ petitioner No.1 at Delhi. She left her matrimonial house from Delhi. Thereafter, she did not reside with accused/ petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, so it appears that the name of accused/ petitioners No. 2 & 3 have been implicated mala 11 fide in this case on account of father and mother of accused/petitioner No.1. Therefore, this is a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked.
17: Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands partly allowed. The present petition filed by accused/petitioner No.1 stands dismissed and so far as it relates to accused/petitioners No. 2 & 3, FIR registered as well as consequent criminal proceedings against these petitioners in connection with Crime No.12/2018 registered at Police Station City Mahila Thana, Satna for offence under Sections under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, stands quashed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE A.Praj.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2020.05.06 15:19:22 +05'30'