498A filed in revenge – Quashed

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

M.Cr.C. No. 11962/2012

11.2.2013

PRADEEP SAHU
Vs
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Shri Narendra Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri V.K.Lakhera, PL for the State.
Shri Neeraj Vegad, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

Coram:- Shri Anil Sharma, J

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners have filed this petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6509/2012 pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that marriage of respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 was performed on 21.11.2009. After about one year of their marriage, they were living separately from the family of petitioner No. 1. On 3.6.2011, respondent No. 2 was admitted in the hospital for delivery of a child, where she delivered a baby girl and according to discharge ticket, she remained admitted in the hospital from 3.6.2011 to 8.6.2011. Before delivery of child, respondent No. 2 left the house of petitioner No. 1 in his absence and was living in her parental house. After delivery, petitioner No. 1 made efforts to bring his wife back, but could not succeed, therefore, he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 9.7.2012 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal. Notice of the case was served on respondent No. 2 on 11.7.2012. Copy of acknowledgment has been filed by the petitioners as Annexure A-4. On 16.7.2012, a written complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent No. 2 against the petitioners, on the basis of which FIR has been registered vide Crime No. 70/2012 at Mahila Thana, Bhopal, thereafter challan has been filed in the trial Court. Counsel has further submitted that respondent No. 2 lodged the report at P.S. after receiving the notice of petition filed by petitioner No. 1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Before more than one year of lodging the FIR, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were living separately from other petitioners and other petitioners have no concern with the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated being close relatives of petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also questioned the genuineness of complaint filed by respondent No. 2 as it bears the signatures in Hindi while on other documents, the signatures are made in English.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has opposed the petition and submitted that the allegation of false implication of the petitioners is baseless, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Dashrath P. Bundela and others Vs. State of M.P. and another – I.L.R. [2011] MP 2923, in which it was not disputed that respondent No. 2 Gayatri was living separately since one year as mentioned by herself in the FIR and she was having three children. However, this Court observed that there is no specific allegation that when demand was made, when she was beaten, by whom, no specific year, month, date or time was mentioned. The report was lodged on 11.3.2006, just after the filing of the divorce petition against respondent No. 2 and date of appearance on the aforesaid case i.e. 10.3.2006. It has been held that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, who are near relatives of husband of respondent No. 2 and permitting to continue such criminal proceedings, would be abuse of process of law and prosecution against the petitioners was quashed. In the instant case also no specific allegation has been made against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7. Before delivery, respondent No. 2 left the house of petitioner No. 1 without informing him. There is no specific allegation when she was beaten by any of the petitioners. It is general experience now that relatives of husband are falsely implicated by the wife just to take revenge of ill treatment by the husband.

Resultantly, in the light of the decision of this Court in Dashrath P. Bundela (supra), the petition is allowed in part. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6509/2012 pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act so far

as it relates to petitioner Nos. 2 to 7, are quashed. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the prosecution with respect to petitioner No. 1 Pradeep Sahu.

(A.K. Sharma)

Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *