Madhya Pradesh High Court
Achin Phulre vs The State Of M.P. on 16 February, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1 M.Cr.C.31135/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31135 of 2021
Between:-
1. ACHIN PHULRE S/O SH. HARI SHANKAR PHULRE ,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/O VILLAGE KAMTADA HAAL,
KHANUJA ENCLAVE, NEAR DANAPANI,
TEHSIL HUZUR
DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. HARISHANKAR PHULRE
S/O LATE SHRI GANGA VISHAN PHULRE ,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED GOVT. SERVANT
VILLAGE KAMTADA HAAL
KHANUJA ENCLAVE NEAR DANAPANI
TEHSIL HUZUR,
DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KOKILA PHULRE W/O SH. HARISHANKAR PHULRE ,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
VILLAGE KAMTADA HAAL
KHANUJA ENCLAVE NEAR DANAPANI
TEHSIL HUZUR
DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(By Shri Kapil Duggal, Advocate)
2 M.Cr.C.31135/2021
AND
1. THE STATE OF M.P.
THROUGH P.S. SIRALI,
DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. NIDHI PHULRE
W/O SHRI ACHIN PHULRE
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FASHION DESIGNER
SAI KRAPA GAAU SHALA ROAD,
HASPITAL MOHALLA, ASPATAL KE SAMNE,
SIRALI, DISTT. HARDA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(By Ms. Swati A. George, PL and
Shri Mani Kant Sharma, Advocate.
Arguments heard on : 15.11.2021
Order delivered on : 16.02.2022
ORDER
By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicants seek quashment of the FIR registered against them under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3 M.Cr.C.31135/2021
2. Applicants No.1, 2 and 3 are respectively husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the aggrieved wife/complainant, who lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Sirali on 13.03.2021, which was registered at Crime No.72/2021, alleging that between the period 18.01.2020 to 13.03.2021, she was harassed and subjected to cruelty, both physical and mental for not bringing enough dowry. She has further stated that number of times her family members and relatives tried to intervene and mediate to resolve the issue, but to no avail. She has further stated that when she went to parental home for Rakhi, she was asked not to return without the dowry amount. Her husband and father-in-law came to Sirali on 20.08.2020 and again made a demand for money. She has made a specific allegation that her father-in-law tore the cheque of Rs.2.5 lakhs given by her father, as it was not according to their demand. On an assurance given by her father, they took the complainant back to Bhopal. However, there she was again treated with cruelty. On coming to know about her pitiful condition, her brother and relatives took her back to her parental house on 12.10.2020. Thereafter, the applicants have neither had 4 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 any contact with her nor made any enquiries about her, in such circumstances, she was compelled to file the complaint.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The aggrieved wife on her own left for her parental home. It is argued that all the allegations made in the FIR regarding cruelty and harassment alleged to have taken place at matrimonial house at Bhopal, no overtact has been alleged at her parental home at Sirali, after she had left the matrimonial home. In these circumstances, the offence of cruelty having been committed in the matrimonial home does not amount to a continuing offence committed in the parental home to which place the wife/complainant may have later shifted. Thus, the registration of FIR and the consequent investigation being carried out by the police authorities of police station Sirali, district Harda is unlawful and without jurisdiction, in view of Section 177 and 178 of Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in the case of Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 1 MPLJ 250, wherein it has been observed:-
" I have gone through the FIR lodged by the complainant. On perusal of the FIR it is crystal clear the complainant was subjected to cruelty and harassment and demand of dowry 5 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 was also made at Asansol only. She was forced to leave her matrimonial place on account of failure to fulfill the said demand of dowry. She has started to reside at Indore since October, 2003 and thereafter at Indore and even a whisper of allegations about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence has been committed or demand of dowry was made continuously by the applicant-husband. Therefore, in the present case also the logic of Section 178(c) of the Code relating to continuance of the offence cannot be applied."
4. Referring to the documents filed alongwith the petition it is submitted that contrary to the allegations made by the complainant regarding the demand of dowry, the applicant No.1 himself has transferred money in the account of the aggrieved wife/complainant. Under the circumstances, the allegation of demand of dowry is unconceivable. Further relaying on (2012) 10 SCC 741 Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others and (2000) 3 SCC 693 G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad, it is argued that all the family members have been roped in the matrimonial dispute without any specific overtact against them. Under the circumstances, continuing the criminal prosecution against the applicants is an abuse to the process of Court.
6 M.Cr.C.31135/2021
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, on the other hand has stated that aggrieved wife in a short span of nine months was forced to leave the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. It is submitted that even when the wife tried to contact the husband, he never responded. Under the circumstances, the mental stress and trauma suffered by the wife after being forced to leave the matrimonial house on account of ill-treatment of applicants continued in the parental home, even though there may not be any physical cruelty at such place. It is further stated that demand for dowry was also made at her parental house, when her husband and father in law came to Sirali, under the circumstances, the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act would be a continuing one and the police station as well as the court at Sirali would have jurisdiction to investigate and entertain the complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court in enquiries and trials. As per Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and 7 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. However, Sections 178 and 179 of the CrPC are exceptions to the above rule, which are referred to herein under :-
"178. Place of inquiry or trial.- (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or (b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or (c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or (d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
"179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.- When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued."
7. These two sections create an exception to the ordinary rule as provided under Section 177 by permitting the Courts in another local area whether the offence is partly committed to take cognizance. Also if the offence committed in one local area continues in another local area, the Court in the latter place would be competent to take cognizance of the matter. As per Section 179, if by reason of the consequences emanating from a criminal act an offence is occasioned in another 8 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 jurisdiction, the Court in that jurisdiction would also be competent to take cognizance.
Section 498-A of the I.P.C. provides for punishment to husband or relative of husband of a woman as under :-
"498A .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 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.
8. Cruelty can be both physical and mental cruelty. The impact of the physical cruelty suffered by the wife at matrimonial home also affects the mental health of the wife and may continue even though she is being driven away from the matrimonial home or even if she willingly leaves her matrimonial home due to the harassment or physical cruelty by her husband or his relatives. The harassment and ill-treatment for 9 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 the reason of demand of dowry may cause continuous emotional and psychological effect and trauma in the mind of the wife, at her parental home also if she was forced to leave her matrimonial home for that reason.
9. In the present case, there is a clear allegations of marpeet and mental harassment/torture by the present applicants for the reason that aggrieved wife could not bring enough dowry. She has further alleged that demand for dowry was also made at her parental house on 20.08.2020, when petitioners No. 1 and 2 came to Sirali. The fact that the applicants No.1 and 2 went to Sirali is also admitted by them in their petition. Complainant further stated that on the assurance of her father, petitioner No.1 and 2 took her back to Bhopal, where she was again subjected to harassment and ultimately was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and take shelter with her parents. The provision contained in Section 498-A of I.P.C. includes both mental and physical well being of the wife. Even though there is no allegations of physical cruelty at Sirali after the wife left the matrimonial home, however looking to the fact that the complainant got married on 18.01.2020 and was compelled to leave the matrimonial house on 12.10.2020, i.e., within a short 10 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 period of 9 months, the suffering and emotional/mental agony consequent to ill-treatment meted out to her must have continued at her parental house also, which amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC at the parental house.
10. The question as to "whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conducts that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the Courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members", has been dealt with in a reference by a Larger Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2019 (5) SCC 384, wherein the Supreme Court has answered the questions thus :-
10. The question that has posed for an answer has nothing to do with the provisions of Section 178 (b) or (c). What has to be really determined is whether the exception carved out by Section 179 would have any application to confer jurisdiction in the courts situated in the local area where the parental house of the wife is located.
11. To answer the above question, one will have to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Law [2nd Amendment Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983)] by which Section 498A was 11 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 inserted in the Indian Penal Code. The section itself may be noticed in the first instance:
"498A.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 years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes 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 valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
12. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced by the Criminal Law (second amendment) Act, 1983. In addition to the aforesaid amendment in the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to inquiries by police in case of death by suicides and inquiries by magistrates into cause of such deaths were also amended. Section 198A was also inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to prosecution of offences under Section 498A. Further by an amendment in the first schedule to the Cr.PC the offence under Section 498A was made cognizable and non- bailable. Of considerable significance is the introduction of Section 113A in the Indian Evidence Act by the Criminal Law (second amendment) Act, 1983 providing for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman to be drawn if such suicide had been committed within a period of seven years from the date of marriage of the married woman and she had been subjected to cruelty. Section 113A is in the following term: 12 M.Cr.C.31135/2021
"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
13. The object behind the aforesaid amendment, undoubtedly, was to combat the increasing cases of cruelty by the husband and the relatives of the husband on the wife which leads to commission of suicides or grave injury to the wife besides seeking to deal with harassment of the wife so as to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property, etc. The above stated object of the amendment cannot be overlooked while answering the question arising in the present case. The 8 judicial endeavour must, therefore, always be to make the provision of the laws introduced and inserted by the Criminal Laws (second amendment) Act, 1983 more efficacious and effective in view of the clear purpose behind the introduction of the provisions in question, as already noticed.
14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under Section 498A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "The intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage (Abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)". Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the 13 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression "cruelty" appearing in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place.
15. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The definition of the Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanation A & B to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code which defines cruelty. The provisions contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly 14 M.Cr.C.31135/2021 attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 Cr.P.C which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised.
16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances and the law laid down, no ground for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Nandita Dubey) Judge 16/02/2022 SMT. GEETHA NAIR gn 2022.02.16 16:48:57 +05'30'