Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akash Parwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 April, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 16 th OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1185 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. AKASH PARWANI S/O SHRI GHANSHYAM
PARWANI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB R/O RAMPURI CAMP, AMRAWATI,
P.S. GADGE NAGAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
AMRAWATI (M.H.) (MAHARASHTRA)
2. SHRI GHANSHYAM PARWANI S/O SHRI
NEVADRAM PARWANI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS MAN R/O RAMPURI
CAMP, AMRAWATI, P.S. GADGE NAGAR, TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT AMRAWATI (M.H.)
(MAHARASHTRA)
3. SMT. REKHA PARWANI W/O SHRI GHANSHYAM
PARWANI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O RAMPURI CAMP, AMRAWATI,
P.S. GADGE NAGAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
AMRAWATI (M.H.) (MAHARASHTRA)
4. VIKAS PARWANI S/O SHRI GHANSHYAM
PARWANI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O RAMPURI CAMP, AMRAWATI, P.S.
GADGE NAGAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
AMRAWATI (M.H.) (MAHARASHTRA)
5. DEEPIKA PARWANI W/O SHRI VIKAS PARWANI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O RAMPURI CAMP, AMRAWATI,
P.S. GADGE NAGAR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
AMRAWATI (M.H.) (MAHARASHTRA)
6. REKHA LALWANI W/O SHRI SANJAY LALWANI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O ITARSI, TEHSIL
IATRSI, DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY MS. POOJA GAJRA - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRADYUMNA
BARVE
Signing time: 4/22/2024
11:22:13 AM
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION KOTWALI DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. BHANUPRIYA PARWANI W/O SHRI AKASH
PARWANI D/O MOHANLAL MANGLANI, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, VIVEKANAND COLONY,
DHARMKATA ROAD, BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI K.V.S. RAO - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
(SHRI SHISHIR KUMAR SONI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the applicants invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered vide Crime No. 107/2022 at Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all its consequential proceedings.
2. The counsel for the applicants contends that applicant No. 1 is the husband, applicant No. 2 is father-in-law, applicant No. 3 is mother-in-law, applicant No. 4 is brother-in-law (Jeth), applicant No. 5 is co-sister (Jethani) and applicant No. 6 is Mami Saas of respondent No.2. The marriage of applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 31.3.2019. After marriage, respondent No. 2 was not keeping good health, therefore, she was taken to the Doctor for treatment and then it came to the knowledge of the applicants that respondent No. 2 was having some gynec problem and her menstrual cycle was not regular. However, respondent No. 2 started giving threat to the applicants Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:22:13 AM 3 and lodged a complaint with Sindhi Panchayat, Balaghat and thereafter, on her own volition, left for her parental house on 17.5.2021 and thereafter upon finding that applicant No. 1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, lodged the impugned FIR.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the applicants that the FIR so lodged by respondent No. 2 is unsustainable and contains false and frivolous allegations. There are no specific details of instances of cruelty and demand of dowry. Respondent No. 2 has also not explained as to why the FIR was lodged on 14.3.2022 when according to respondent No. 2's own showing in her complaint dated 5.2.2022 filed by respondent No. 2 as Annexure R-2/1 with reply to stay application she left matrimonial house on 17.1.2020. It is further contended that there are no details in the entire FIR as to what articles were demanded by the present applicants in dowry. There is no mention of demand of any money as dowry nor any article. Thus, it is contended that as there are not specific allegations, hence the impugned FIR is unsustainable. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Geeta Malhotra and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. - 2012 (10) SCC 741 and Kahakashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6SCC 599].
4. Per contra, the counsel for the State submits that this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed as there are direct allegations against the present applicants. The applicants not only subjected respondent No. 2 to cruelty but also demanded dowry and hence at this stage, interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not required.
5. The counsel for respondent No. 2 contends that respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty and, therefore, having found no other alternative, she was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:22:13 AM 4 behoved to lodge the impugned FIR against the applicants. It is further contended that the ground, pertaining to lodging of the FIR after filing of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by applicant No. 1, is misconceived, inasmuch as the notice of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was received by respondent No. 2 after lodging of the present FIR. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The counsel has placed reliance on the orders passed by Gwalior Bench of this Court in Devendra Kumar Sadh and others Vs. State of M.P. and another - (2022) 1 MPWN 61 and Achin Phulre and others Vs. The State of M.P. and others - (2022) CriLJ 1719.
6. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
7. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. The relevant part of the FIR, which has been lodged against the present applicants, is reproduced as under:-
महोदय , िनवेदन है िक मै ीमित भानुि या पित आकाश पारवानी उ 30 वष जाित संधी िनवासी वाड नंबर 28 िववेक ानद कलोनी वालाघाट क िनवासी हँ। मेर ी शादी वष 31.03.2019 को अमरावती िनवासी आकाश िपता घन याम दास पारवानी के साथ अमरावती म सामा जक रीित रवाज से सप हई थी। मेर ी शादी म मेरे िपताजी एवं मेरे र तेदार ने अपनी अपनी है सयत के िहसाब से उपहार व प मेर ी शादी मे लगभग 15 तोला सोना एवं नगदी आठ लाख पये नगद िदये थे । शादी के बाद करीबन दो तीन माह तक मुझे मेरे ससुर ाल वाल ने अ छे से रखा था उसके उपरांत मेरे पित आकाश पारवानी, ससुर घन यामदास पारवानी, सास रेखा पारवानी, जेठ िवकाश पारवानी जेठानी टीिपका पारवानी जो एक साथ रहते थे और मेर ी मामीसास रेखा लालवानी जो इटारसी म रहती है वह भी मेरे ससुर ाल आती जाती रहती थी उसके ारा भी मेरे ससुर ाल प वालो के साथ िमलकर मुझसे बोलते थे िक तु हारे माता िपता ने शादी म कम दान दहेज िदया ह। तुम और हमे दहेज लाकर दो तभी हम आपको अ छे से रखेग । मैने कहा िक शादी म काफ कु छ िदया है, मेरे िपताजी और दहेज नह दे पाएं गे । इसी बात को लेक र मेरे ससुर ाल वाले मुझे आये िदन दहेज क मांग करने को लेक र शारी रक और मान सक प से परेश ान करने लगे | मैने उ हे काफ समझाया लेिकन वह नही माने और मुझे िनरंतर परेश ान करने लगे । घटना के बारे म मैने फोन Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:22:13 AM 5 पर कई बार अपने िपता मोहन मंग लानी और अपनी मां आशा मंग लानी को बताया था। मुझे ससुर ाल प के यादा परेश ान करने लगे तो म अपनी ससुर ाल से िदनांक 17.05.2021 को अपने मायके वाड न. 28 िववेक ान द कालोनी बालाघाट आई थी और घर आने पर भी मैने घटना के बारे मे और भाई सुिमत मंग लानी को बतायी थी। आवेिदका ीमित भानूि या पारवानी िनवासी वाड नंबर 28 पुनः अपने माता िपता िववेक ानंद कलोनी बालाघाट ह ता र अं ेजी म अ प 14/3/22 अपराध पंजीब कर िववेचना म लया गया। "
9. On perusal of the contents of the FIR, it reveals that respondent No. 2 after disclosing date of marriage, stated in the FIR that after 2-3 months from the date of marriage, the present applicants demanded dowry and family members of applicant No. 1/husband subjected respondent No. 2 to physical and mental cruelty. Respondent No. 2 informed her parents regarding aforesaid cruelty, thereafter the impugned FIR has been lodged. Upon composite scrutiny of the FIR and also the statements of the father, mother and brother of respondent No. 2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it reveals that respondent No. 2 while lodging the FIR and even in the statement, has nowhere stated as to whether any money, article, jewelry or household item was demanded by the applicants from respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has also not specified any individual overt act of the applicants. There are no details regarding date, place and time, on which respondent No. 2 was subjected to cruelty. The FIR as well as statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveal that there are general and omnibus allegations against the applicants without specific details. Respondent No. 2 has even implicated applicant No. 6, who according to respondent No. 2 herself is a resident of Itarsi. Therefore, a combined reading of entire statements and the FIR leaves no iota of doubt that there are no particulars of specific instances of cruelty and there are no details regarding demand, which was made by the present applicants.
10. Lacuna in giving particulars of specific overt act and also general and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:22:13 AM 6 omnibus allegations have been taken note of by the Apex Court in number of cases recently. The Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan Kausar (supra), has held in paragraphs 16 and 18 as under:
"1 6 . Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6).
"6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
1 8 . Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating h er pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:22:13 AM 7 allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
11. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Kahkasha Kausar reveals that when the prosecution is based on general and omnibus allegation against the family members/relatives of the husband, it is the duty of the Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to ensure that in absence of any specific allegation, the parties should not be subjected to frivolous litigation, which would ultimately result in a futile exercise of conducting a trial, which in all probability would result in acquittal as well. Therefore, just in order to nib in the bud, upon analysis of the entire documents filed with the charge-sheet, if it appears that only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the husband and his family members, the intervention in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is imperative. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid as the allegations against the applicants are general and omnibus without necessary details like place, date and time of the incident and also details pertaining to demand, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution launched against the applicants pursuant to impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
12. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:22:13 AM 8 applicants vide Crime No. 107/2022 at Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all its consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. The applicants are discharged from the aforesaid charges. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE PB Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 4/22/2024 11:22:13 AM