Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Ashish Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 1562
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
S. B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Misc. Criminal Case No.18814/2019
Dr. Ashish Pandey & Others
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh & another
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri S.R. Kushwaha, learned P.L. for the respondent
No.1/State.
None for the respondent No.2/complainant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(06.05.2020) This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the applicants/petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the Final Report and consequential proceedings dated in connection with Crime No.46/2019 registered at Police Station-Gwarighat, District-Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent No.2/complainant-Smt. Preeti Shukla was solemnized 2 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 on 05.05.2018 with the applicant/petitioner No.1 Dr. Ashish Pandey as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Applicant/petitioner No.2 Manish Pandey is brother-in-law (Jeth), applicant/petitioner No.3 Smt. Vandana Pandey is sister-in- law (Jethani), applicant/petitioner No.4 Saroj Kumar Pandey is father-in-law and applicant/petitioner No.5 Smt. Manorama Pandey is mother-in-law of the respondent No.1/complainant. Respondent No.2/complainant has filed a written complaint on 02.02.2019 before In-charge of Police, Police Station- Gwarighat, District-Jabalpur in which it is mentioned that at the time of her marriage, father of the respondent No.2/complainant gave a cash of Rs.6,00,000/-, ornaments and household goods; however, applicants/petitioners were not satisfied with the same. After marriage when she came to her matrimonial house, on 06.05.2018, applicant No.1/husband said that her father has not given a car to him, due to which, prestige of her family members was ruined in the society. On the next day i.e. 07.05.2018, applicants were sitting in the hall, then applicant No.3 being in hall, wherein applicant No.4 and 5 said to her that when her father was not capable to give a car to them, then why he has solemnized her marriage with applicant No.1 and when respondent 3 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 No.2/complainant said that her father is not financially strong to give the car, then present applicants/petitioners abused her filthily and committed marpeet with her, thereafter, respondent No.2 ran away from her room and narrated the whole incident to her father through mobile. Thereafter, after two days, respondent No.2/complainant's father had gone to her matrimonial house to bring her back. At that time, all the applicants/petitioners abused her father filthily and said that we would accept his daughter, when he would give a car to them. Applicant No.1/husband and applicant No.5/mother-in- law of the respondent No.2 have forcibly taken all the gold ornaments/jewelry and her suitcase also. Thereafter, on 09.07.2018 her family members have came to Jabalpur and gave Rs.1,00,000/- to applicant No.4 in presence of all applicants/petitioners. On 10.07.2018 at Family Consultation Centre, a compromise was struck and respondent No.2 agreed to return her matrimonial house; but behaviour of applicants had not changed. But respondent No.2/complainant and her family members wanted to save the married life of the respondent No.2, therefore on 02.02.2019 she again came to her matrimonial house with her parents, but applicant No.1 abused them and applicant No.1/husband had beaten the 4 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 respondent No.2 on fists, thereafter all present applicants/petitioners came there and they have also beaten her and her parents. Consequently, respondent No.2/complainant has lodged the aforesaid written report dated 02.02.2019 with In-charge of Police, Police Station- Gwarighat. On the basis of written complaint, First Information Report No.46/2019 has been registered against the present applicants/petitioners on dated 03.02.2019. After investigation, a criminal case was registered against the present applicants/petitioners and final report has been prepared by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners submits that respondent No.2/complainant has left her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason. Present applicants/petitioners never demanded any dowry from the respondent No.2/complainant and her family members and applicant No.1/husband never harassed the respondent in any manner. On 03.07.2018, a written complaint was also lodged by the applicant No.1/husband with respect to not living with his wife as well as not sending his wife with the parents of the 5 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 respondent No.2/complainant. Thereafter, on 24.06.2018 when he went to bring his wife at Shivpuri then his mother-in- law and brother-in-law refused to send his wife and said that applicant No.1 is impotent then he was shocked. Thereafter, he called his wife and stated about this fact, but his wife was silent. Then, applicant No.1 forced to tell him about the said fact, then his wife told that what her parents were saying was right and she is not ready to live with him. Thereafter, his mother-in-law and brother-in-law misbehaved and threatened him with dire consequences and told him of implicating the applicants/petitioners in a false case. Applicant No.1/petitioner is ready to take the respondent to her matrimonial house; however, respondent No.2/wife declined to go altogether after leveling baseless allegations against the present applicant No.1 along with his parents i.e. applicant Nos.2 to 5. He also submits that It is crystal clear from the elements available in the charge-sheet that complete false case for taking shelter of law for illegal purpose has been lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant. When applicant No.1/husband had written a complaint, by way of counter- blast, respondent No.2/wife lodged a written report with the said police station. The first step for unreasoned leaving of his 6 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 wife was taken by the husband/applicant No.1 by lodging written complaint, thereafter, further step of respondent No.2/complainant is only self created story for some ulterior purpose. There is no cruelty and demand of dowry by the present applicants/petitioners. Therefore, whole case has been registered only to harass the applicants/petitioners. In aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that the proceedings instituted on aforesaid First Information Report and consequential proceedings against the present applicants/petitioners be quashed. In support of his contention he placed reliance in the case of Vikas Kumar Jain and others Vs. State of M.P. and another passed in M.Cr.C. No.840/2017 vide order dated 06.09.2017.
4. Though, respondent No.2/complainant has been represented in this miscellaneous case, no one appeared on her behalf at the time of arguments.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State has opposed the prayer of the present applicants/petitioners for quashing the First Information Report and consequential proceedings against them.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 7 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019
7. This is a case of matrimonial dispute, therefore, it has to be seen as how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.
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 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 8 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 mere conjectures and implications such 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 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 9 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 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 hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498-A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the 10 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 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 11 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein 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 counseled 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."
13. In the case of State of Harayana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 the Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:-
"(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 the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in 12 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 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 malafide 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. The Hon'ble Apex court has laid down seven guide lines for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and this Court will examine the facts of the case under the light of above said principles.
15. Having read the above said principles, it is manifest that High Court should use its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court, but while exercising its power the high Court must evaluate whether the 13 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
16. This Court in the case of Hemant Pandey Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2018(1) MPWN 45 in para 8 & 9 has held as under:-
"8.At the stage of framing of charge, the contents of the F.I.R and the statement of the witnesses ought to be seen. It is to be seen that prima facie case is made out. In the case of C.B.I Vs. K.M. Sharan, (2008) 4 SCC 471wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not called upon to embark upon the inquiry whether the allegations in the F.I.R and the charge sheet are reliable or not and thereupon to render definite finding about truthfulness or veracity of the allegations. These are the matters which can be examined only by the Court concerned after the entire material is produced before it on a thorough investigation and evidence is led.
9. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceeding ought to be quashed"
17. In the light of aforesaid legal position. I would proceed to decide this petition.
18. It is admitted fact that applicant No.1/petitioner-
Dr. Ashish Pandey is husband, applicant/petitioner No.2 Manish Pandey is brother-in-law (Jeth), applicant/petitioner No.3 Smt. Vandana Pandey is sister-in-law (Jethani), applicant/petitioner No.4 Saroj Kumar Pandey is father-in-law 14 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 and applicant/petitioner No.5 Smt. Manorama Pandey is mother-in-law of the respondent No.1/complainant.
19. It is alleged by the respondent No. 2 in her complaint that father of respondent No.2 had given six lakh cash and 15 tola gold to the petitioners at the time of marriage. It is not disputed that on 05.05.2018, the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with the petitioner No.1.
It is alleged by the respondent No.2 that on 06.05.2018, petitioner No.1 said that her father has not given a car to him and other petitioners were also demanding the same, thereafter she told that her parents are not capable to give a car to them then all the petitioners/accused have beaten her by kicks and fists thereafter, she telephoned her father and narrated the whole incident. After two days, her father reached her matrimonial home, then petitioners/accused have also abused her father and petitioners/accused have forcibly snatched all the gold ornaments from the respondent No.2 and sent her with her father. Thereafter, respondent No.2 tried to save her wedlock and due to which she and her family members also came to Jabalpur on 09.07.2018 and one lakh rupees was given to the father-in-law of respondent No.2. On
10.07.2018 both parties appeared before Parivar Paramarsh 15 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 Kendra Jabalpur to enter into compromise, but petitioners/accused were not ready to the same, thereafter, on 02.02.2019 she again reached her matrimonial home, but petitioner/accused did not permit her to enter into his house. Thereafter, petitioners/accused have beaten her then she lodged the report against them.
20. During investigation, the statements of respondent No.2, her father and mother were recorded. The name of petitioner No. 2-Manish Pandey and Petitioner No.3- Smt. Vandana Pandey are not mentioned in the police statement of respondent No.2. She did not allege any fact about cruelty and demand of dowry against the said petitioners. The father and mother of the respondent No.2 also did not allege any specific fact about cruelty and demand of dowry against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No. 2 respectively. There is general allegation about the demand of dowry and cruelty against the said petitioners/accused. Therefore, it appears that these petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of being brother-in- law and sister-in-law or family members of petitioner No. 1 . 16 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that respondent No. 2 was residing in the matrimonial house for few days. Respondent No. 2 is a teacher and posted at Shivpuri, therefore, it is clear that she was residing at her work place i.e. Shivpuri. On 24.06.2018., petitioner No. 1 had gone to the parental house of respondent No. 2, he told her to come to her matrimonial house, but respondent No. 2 refused to come with him. The Family members of respondent No. 2 misbehaved with him and also threatened him to implicate him in a false case. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint on 03.07.2018 for the same, due to which respondent No. 2 has lodged a false complaint against the aforesaid petitioners as a counter blast. Petitioners/accused No. 4 and 5 are father and mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, they are old persons. Petitioner No.4 is heart patient and he is involved in the said case as he is father of the petitioner No.1.
22. It appears from the record that respondent No.2 for the first time lived at her matrimonial house for two days only, thereafter, she had gone to her parental house. Again she came to her matrimonial house on 09.07.2018 and she alleged that on 09.07.2018 she gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner Nos.3 and 4, but these facts were not mentioned in the 17 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 statements of her father and mother. She had gone to her parental house and she again came on 02.02.2019. It is mentioned in her police statements that petitioner/accused did not permit her to enter into his house and also beaten her. Thereafter, she lodged the report for the same, but no injury was found on the body of the respondent No.2. So, it cannot be said that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have beaten the respondent No.2.
23. Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are old persons. It appears from the record that they have been involved in the present case with malafide intention of the respondent No.2, so, it is abuse of process of law.
24. So far as with regard to petitioner/accused No.1, he is husband of respondent No.2, although he submitted an application before the Mahila Thana, Jabalpur on 03.07.2018 and thereafter respondent No.2 lodged First Information Report on 03.02.2019. Petitioner/accused No.1 has alleged in his complaint that respondent No.2 and her family members committed cruelty with him and respondent No.2 was not ready to live with him, respondent No.2 has also taken all the ornaments with her, so, respondent No.2 and her family members have conspired and looted him, but all these facts 18 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 will be investigated at the time of trial. Petitioner/accused No.1 is husband of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 alleged specific act of cruelty and demand of dowry against the petitioner/accused No.1. All the disputed questions will be inquired before the trial Court at the stage of trial, so this is not a proper case in which its inherent jurisdiction can be invoked with regard to petitioner/accused No.1.
25. I find only general allegations against the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and it is evident from the record that these petitioners are implicated in this case due to being father-in-law, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner/accused No.1 and they cannot be further prosecuted merely on the relation with the petitioner No.1. So in these circumstances, this is a fit case where inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
26. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the final report and Crime and consequential proceedings in connection with Crime No. 46/2019 registered at Police Station Gwarighat, District Jabalpur for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the dowry Prohibition is hereby quashed 19 M.Cr.C.No.18814/2019 against the petitioner No. 2-Manish Pandey, petitioner No.3- Smt. Vandana Pandey, petitioner No.4-Saroj Kumary Pandey and petitioner No.5-Smt. Manorama Pandey. As far as petitioner No. 1-Dr. Ashish Pandey is concerned, this petition is hereby dismissed and proceedings may go on continue against him, however, the learned Family Court is directed to decide the case on its own discretion without being influenced by any findings of this Court.
(Rajendra Kumar Srivastava) Judge sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.05.11 13:29:14 +05'30'