Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Coming to paragraph (10) of the complaint, there is a very grave and offensive allegation made against the girl Sunita which is to the effect that she is alleged to have disclosed to the Complainant about an incestuous relationship between herself and her own father prior to the marriage. It is most unfortunate and unpalatable that a charge of this type has been made in the complaint. I shall set out the reasons for these observations. Suffice it to say that the accusations in paragraph (10) of the complaint are in substance to the effect that the girl Sunita made these horrifying disclosures to the Complainant-husband. Had this been true, the Complainant would have, in the first instance, clearly and frankly indicated when and under what unusual circumstances this disclosure was made. If at all any credibility is to be attached to a bald allegation of such gravity, it would be necessary to indicate as to what was the unusual situation that forced/provoked the girl to make such a startling disclosure. Merely because the Complainant makes a statement in writing or on oath before the trial Court, the learned Magistrate is not absolved of the responsibility of judicially evaluating and testing the correctness of the statement on the basis of the remaining material before him and on the probabilities of the case. In the present case, had this particular allegation been one of truth, the Complainant would have very clearly indicated under what circumstances the girl Sunita made a confession/disclosure of this type to him and the point of time when this was done. The subsequent statement in this paragraph and in particular the last sentence of paragraph (9), which reads as follows, are significant.

"Thus this was another vital fact which was suppressed by the Accused persons, who simply wanted to deceive me and the members of the family. However, Accused No. 6 ultimately was given an opportunity to mend her ways and then she resided with him at the matrimonial home at Malad."

7. It is quite inconceivable when the Complainant himself avers that the knowledge of an incestuous relationship totally shattered him mentally that he would have thereafter given the girl a chance to mend her ways and to continue with the matrimonial state. It is of vital importance while examining the complaint as a whole and while examining the acceptability or otherwise of the averments in the complaint that the Court must judicially evaluate what is placed before it even at the stage of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

12. Mr. Parekh also advanced certain submissions in support of his contention that it was only after a complaint was lodged to the police in May 1989 by the girl Sunita for an alleged offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code that the present Complainant, as a counter-blast, came forward before the Magistrate's Court and filed the present complaint. His allegation is to the effect that, admittedly, the girl Sunita had left the matrimonial home in January 1989 and if, as alleged, the Complainant and the entire family had been defrauded in the marriage and furthermore if the girl Sunita had disclosed such serious charges as incestuous relations with her own father that at least at that point of time when she had come to the matrimonial home the Complainant would have immediately taken appropriate proceedings and would have lodged the complaint in respect of the charges, if at all they were true. This again was a case of alleged cheating after the parties had lived together for one full year. As against this, Mr. Sutrale, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 husband, has pointed out to me that given the set-up in which persons live in this country and the social background of the parties, it would be perfectly logical to expect that even if certain difficulties had arisen that the husband had not thought of taking the same before a judicial forum; that he would have waited for sometime and as always happens, he would have hoped that some settlement or solution could have been found and that therefore merely because the complaint has been lodged in June 1989 that the lapse of time should not be held against him. To this extent, the submissions of Mr. Sutrale are justified, because in delicate matters relating to matrimonial disputes, we cannot expect the respective parties to immediately approach a Court of law within the shortest possible time after the problem has arisen. However, as far as the present complaint is concerned, the fact that the same has been filed in June 1989 alone is not at all the ground on which I am inclined to quash the proceedings. As indicated earlier, the material placed before the trial Court fails to make out the essential ingredients of the charge and on a total examination of the complaint and the documents placed before the trial Court, I am clearly of the view that the learned Magistrate was not justified in entertaining the present complaint.

15. The Complainant has been bold enough to make a serious charge against the girl Sunita accusing her of incest with her own father. It is necessary to examine this unsavoury aspect of the case also. Assuming the charges were to be true, one may reasonably conclude that the only persons who knew about it were the girl Sunita and her father Accused No. 2. In the first instance, it is not the Complainant's case at all that the matrimonial life was disrupted because of the girl's alleged incestuous attachment with her father. Admittedly, they have lived together for one year during which time the basic charge was with regard to the so-called physical infirmities. Furthermore, if any such situation was prevalent and the girl subsequently disclosed the same, the Complainant would not have cohabited with the wife thereafter, and in the complaint that was filed a specific charge would have been made to the effect that Accused Nos. 2 and 6 are guilty of having suppressed this very serious aspect of the case. One needs to examine this aspect a little further. The question arises as to whether if the Complainant's advocate contends that he desired to establish this sordid aspect of the case before the criminal Court can he be deprived of that opportunity. To my mind, taking into account the totality of circumstances, this allegation is thoroughly absurd; it is clearly an after thought and has been made to hit back at the girl Sunita and her father, because they have prosecuted the Complainant for an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from the bare word of the Complainant, there is, admittedly, no other evidence, and consequently, in the light of the Complainant's past, his low degree of credibility and the circumstances against him, his bald statement will not be sufficient either for the purpose of framing a charge against Accused Nos. 2 and 6, much less recording a conviction. Where bona fides of the Complainant are in grave doubt and where the conduct of the Complainant bristles with mala fides, the continuance of the criminal prosecution even against Accused Nos. 2 and 6 on this solitary charge would be against the interest of justice and against public interest. This is a case which is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court as reported in the case of Madhavrao v. Sambhajirao, .