Ankur Bhalla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2014

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ankur Bhalla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2014

        <font size="4">
    <div style="width: 600px; background-color: white;  height: 500px; margin: 0px auto; word-wrap: break-word;" id="ggg" onkeypress="return  nb(event)" onmouseup="checkStat()" contenteditable="true">
<p style="margin-left: -0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; page-break-before: always" align="CENTER">
<font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="4"><u><b>M.Cr.C
No.15082/2012</b></u></font></font></p>
<p style="margin-left: -0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="LEFT">
   <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"><b><u>26</u><u>.08.2014</u></b></font></font></p>
<p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY">
<font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3">	Shri Raman Patel,
Advocate for the applicant.</font></font></p>
<p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY">
<font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3">	Shri Yogendra Das
Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.</font></font></p>

Shri C.L Sethi, Advocate for respondent no.2. With the consent of the parties this matter is heard finally. Present petition is directed under section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment of criminal proceedings pending at Regular Criminal Case No. 92/2012 in the court of JMFC, Khandwa against petitioner on the basis of complaint of respondent under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Admittedly, respondent married to the petitioner on 18/04/2012 in Jabalpur according to hindu rites and rituals. On 17/08/2012 respondent left the house of petitioner and started living in her parents house at Khandwa. In the month of August, 2012 petitioner preferred a petition in Jabalpur Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and respondent preferred a complaint under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act in the Court of JMFC Khandwa. According to husband/petitioner, respondent/wife was unhappy because of his status and earning saying that she was kept in dark by her own sister and her husband regarding actual earning and status of the husband and left the matrimonial house on her own. According to respondent/wife, petitioner was engaged and involved with one Puja who was working in private agency and never gave the respondent her due place in his life as well as in his family and house. Other family members also expressed their dissatisfaction with the items and amount given by her parents in marriage, whereas, in marriage about Rs.50,000/- in cash and house hold items have been given by the parents. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that aforesaid petition of restitution of conjugal of rights has been decreed by the Family Court Jabalpur on 08/02/2013. In response, learned counsel for respondent submits that aforesaid decree was obtained behind the back of her and she had moved for setting aside the decree for passing order after hearing both the parties. Considering the rival contentions given in application for restitution of conjugal rights and in application of Domestic Violence Act by both the parties, it appears that it would be decided by evidence only, whether petitioner was unhappy with the marriage because already husband was engaged with some other lady and had never given due place and position to his wife in family and continued cruelty and harassment, or wife was unhappy in the family because according to low status and earning of husband and she was made to marry after hiding reality by common relatives of both the families. Learned counsel for petitioner placing reliance on 2000(2) C.Cr.J. 835(M.P) (Randeep Jaggi & others Vs. State of M.P) submits that criminal proceeding if is a counter blast of family court proceedings then it can be presumed to be incident of abuse of process and deserves to be quashed. Further placing reliance on 2012 (1) MPHT 196 (Dashrath P Bundela & others Vs. State of M.P &

another) submits that prosecution cannot be allowed to continue against all family members on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent submit that in present case both the parties have approached the respective courts by filing application for conjugal rights in Jabalpur and application under Domestic Violence Act in Khandwa and made allegations against each other simultaneously. None of the matter can be said a reaction of another. Considering the aforesaid, it is left to the wisdom and discretion of the trial court considering the chronology of events and to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and to proceed in accordance with law. Mere filing of petition for restitution of conjugal rights and by passing ex parte decree, it cannot be said to be a ground of quashment of case of Domestic Violence Act. For want of merits this petition is dismissed. Needless to write that JMFC, Khandwa shall make all efforts and endurance for mediation and amicable settlement of dispute between the parties in addition to regular progress of the trial. Certified copy as per rules. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge tarun  <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>  </div>

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ankur Bhalla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2014