Brajesh Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 October, 2017

High Court of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur

M.Cr.C. No. 20769/2016
Brajesh Verma Others
Vs.
The State of M.P Others.
****

Shri Amit Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Ramji Pandey, learned P.L for the respondent No. 1/State.

Shri Basant Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

Present: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Palo
_
(Order)
10/10/2017
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to
quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 2054/2016
pending before J.M.F.C, Harda for offence under Sections
498- A, 294, 506 of I.P.C read with Section 3 /4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.

2. The facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that
respondent No. 2/ complainant is married to petitioner No. 1-
Brajesh Verma on 25.02.2011. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother-
in-law, petitioner No. 3 is the sister-in-law, petitioner No. 5 is
the sister-in-law and petitioner No. 4 is the husband of
petitioner No. 5. Petitioner No. 7 is the sister-in-law and
petitioner No. 6 is the husband of petitioner No. 7.

3. The respondent No. 2/complainant lodged a report at
police station Timrani, District Harda alleging that at the
time of her marriage, her parents had given articles including
clothes, jewelery, home appliances and cash sufficiently.
Despite that her husband/petitioner No. 1, mother-in-
law/petitioner No. 2, sister-in-laws/petitioner No. 3 sister-in-
law (Jethani), petitioner No. 5 and petitioner No. 7
complained that inadequate dowry has been given. They
demanded a motorcycle due to which the brother of the
complainant- Deepak had given Rs.55,000/- to Brajesh for
purchase of motorcycle. After some time, the in-laws
demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for opening a shop for Brajesh, her
husband. She informed her brother and father about the
demand. Her two sisters-in-law, petitioner Nos. 5 and 7
whenever come to their maternal home, (house of the in-laws
of the complainant), they instigated petitioner No. 1, Brajesh
about the demand of dowry. Her husband, her sister-in-law
(Jethani) and mother-in-law to demand gold chain, washing
machine and Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant. When this
demand was not met, her husband tried to strangulate her.
The matter was referred to Parivar Paramarsh Kendra,
Hoshangabad on her complaint. The conciliators advised her
to take recourse to law but she preferred not to take any
action for she did not want to lose her family life.

4. Her brother-in-law (Jeth) is serving outside. Her sister-in-
law/petitioner No. 3 is residing in the first floor. Her husband
used to visit the first floor by some pretext or the other. One
day when her sister-in-law/petitioner No. 3 fell from the
staircase, she lodged a false report against the complainant,
on the advice of her uncle who is an Advocate. The
complainant was falsely implicated. Her husband used to live
in the first floor up to 12:00-1:00′ O’clock in the night. When
she complained about this, he threatened to divorce her.
Somehow the complainant lived there. Her two daughters
were born at Timarni and Harda. But all the expenses were
born by her parents. She visited her in-laws’ place off and on
but she was being taunted that she is giving birth to only girl
child. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner No.1 to
bring a second wife. Then she was thrown out from the
matrimonial home along with her child. She left for her
parental house. After her in-laws were called and persuaded
them, took her but she was ill-treated, abused and subjected
to cruelty.

5. Her brother was informed by phone to come and take her
otherwise some day she will be killed by them. Her brother
came to Hoshangabad and took her to her parental home.
The petitioners told them if Rs.5,00,000/- is not arranged, she
will not be taken to her in-laws house.’ Because the demand
could not be met, she is living at her parental house for 8-9
months.

6. On 17.06.2016 at about 10.00 am, when she was preparing
food at the matrimonial home, her husband, mother-in-law,
sister-in-law (Jethani) came there and stated that if she does
not bring Rs.5,00,000/-, she should sign the divorce paper.
Her husband caught her by her hair and took to the gas stove
with intention to kill her. She tried to escape. The petitioner
No. 2/mother-in-law, petitioner No. 3/sister-in-law (Jethani)
were instigating petitioner No. 1-Brajesh to kill her. When
she shouted, her brother Deepak and one Jagdish Nayar and
passers by Nirbhaydas Patil and Rajesh Yogi came there and
saved her, otherwise she could be done to death. After this,
accused persons threatened her stating that she somehow
escaped but in future, they will complete the job. During Deo
Soni Gyaras, her husband and mother-in-law had come to her
father’s house and said that by lodging report what they have
achieved?

7. On this report, crime was registered at police station
Timarni for offence under Sections 498 A, 294, 506 of I.P.C
and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

8. On behalf of the petitioners, arguments has been
vehemently advanced stating that the complainant
caused injury to petitioner No. 2/her mother-in-law,
therefore, earlier report was lodged on 01.06.2014.
Subsequently, there was repetition of the incident and,
hence, on 26.06.2015 another report was lodged. On
16.07.2015, petitioner No. 3/sister-in-law (Jethani) was
pushed by the complainant due to which she fell down
and sustained injuries. On her report, criminal case was
registered under Sections 323, 294 of I.P.C. In this case,
petitioner Nos. 5 and 7 were shown as witnesses. On
27th July, 2015, the complainant left the matrimonial
home. After one year, the report has been lodged.

9. The petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of
conjugal right. They also tried to bring her to the
matrimonial home but nothing came out and the
petitioners have been falsely implicated as a counter
blast.

10. Counsel for the
petitioners placed
reliance on Preeti
Gupta And Another
Vs. State of
Jharkhand And
Another, (2010) 7
SCC 667, wherein the
Apex Court has held
that:-

Quashing of
“

complaint
under S. 498-A
I.P.C against
appellants
(unmarried
brother and
married sister
of
complainant’s
husband) who
were neither
residing with
complainant in
her
matrimonial
home nor
visited her-
Demand of
luxury car,
passing of
sarcastic
remarks
(without
stating actual
wordings), and
physical
assault alleged
against
parents-in-law,
husband and
appellants- No
specific
allegation
made against
appellants in
complaint, and
none of the
witnesses
attributing any
role to them-
Held, their
implication
was only
meant to
harass and
humiliate
husband’s
relatives-
Permitting
complainant to
pursue
complaint
would be
abuse of
process of law-
Hence,
complaint
against
appellants
quashed-
Courts
cautioned to
scrutinize such
vexatious and
frivolous
complaints
with great
care and
circumspectio
n.”
11. Learned counsel
for the petitioners
suggesting that the
family members have
been falsely
implicated, relied
upon the case of
Pashaura Singh Vs.
State of Punjab
Another, (2010) 11
SCC 749, wherein it
has been held that:-

Subjecting
“

woman to
cruelty by
husband and
his relatives-
Absence of
proof of
demand of
dowry or
harassment by
accused- High
Court found
that only
allegation
made in FIR
was that
appellant-
accused and
his family
members
started
harassing
appellant’s
wife for not
bringing more
dowry- But
there was no
demand for
dowry, nor was
there any
specific
entrustment of
dowry articles
to accused as
alleged in FIR-
Held, offence
under Section
498 A not
made out.”
12. Learned counsel

for the petitioners has
submitted that no
allegation of demand
of dowry was made.

The allegation was
made for the first time
in the complaint.

Earlier there was no
complaint about any
demand of dowry and
harassment.

Therefore, the
complaint’s
allegations are

developments. In this
regard reference has
been made to
Bhaskar Lal Sharma
Another Vs.
Monica, (2009) 10
SCC 604, wherein it
has been held that:-

Penal Code,
“

1860- Ss. 498-

A, 406 and 34 –

Complaint
petition under-

Emails
between
couple and
parents
forming part
of- Evidentiary
value and
importance of –

Non-

consideration
of, by High
Court- Effect-

Whether
correspondenc
e showed any
allegation of
dowry demand
or
misappropriati
on of
respondent’s
wife’s stridhan-

Held,
complaint
petition must
also be read
with several
other
documents
which form
part of the
complaint
petition- In
none of them
had any
allegation with
regard to
cruelty or
breach of trust
been made-

Allegations
made for first
time in
complaint
petition and
application for
grant of
maintenance-
Correspondenc
e exchanged
between the
spouses and
between the
husband and
his in-laws did
not disclose
any allegation
which would
amount to
criminal
misconduct on
part of
appellants- It
was evident
that the couple
had developed
incompatibility
– Evidence Act,
1872- S. 3- E-
mail
correspondenc
e- Evidentiary
value of –
Criminal
Procedure
Code, 1973,
Ss. 154 to 157
and 482.”
13. Learned counsel
for the petitioners
have also placed
reliance on Swapnil
And Others Vs.
State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2014) 13
SCC 567, wherein it
has been held that:-

“Quashment
of proceedings
under-
Accusations
unfounded so
charges
quashed-
Admittedly
wife living
separately
since April
2011, due to
strained
relationship
with appellant
husband- held,
on facts, there
is no question
of any beating
by appellants
as respondent
wife not living
together –
Even
application for
restitution of
conjugal rights
withdrawn by
husband as
wife was not
interested to
live together-
Hence, it is
difficult to
believe that
there was still
a demand for
dowry coupled
with criminal
intimidation-
Allegations are
vague and
bereft of
details as to
place and time
of incident-
Impugned
prosecution
wholly
unfounded-
Charges
against
appellant-
accused
deserve to be
quashed-
Criminal
Procedure
Code, 1973- S.
482- Crimes
Against
Women and
Children-
Dowry
Prohibition
Act, 1961,”
S.4.”

14. Learned P.L for the respondent/State opposing the
contentions submits that the documents filed by the
respondent with regard to the report against the
complainant etc are not the part of the record and the
same cannot be considered at this stage. It is also stated
that right from the beginning there have been a constant
maltreatment and ill-treatment by the petitioners. Hence,
earlier settlement was done before Parivar Paramarsh
Kendra. However, the petitioners have been constantly
harassing her. The documents, which are not on record,
cannot be considered at this stage. Otherwise also it
need to be ascertained at the trial. Hence, the order
impugned is called for no interference.

15. Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has also
vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by the
counsel for the petitioners and submits that the
complainant was beaten brutally and was taken to the
gas stove to burn her by her husband/petitioner No. 1 on
the instigation of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. After this
incident the petitioner lodged the report. Earlier she did
not report thinking that she wanted to live with her in-
laws.

16. Considered the submissions made by the rival parties.

17. Perused the record.

18. The Annexures submitted only indicate that there has
been estrange relationship between the parties but it is also
seen that the complainant had earlier lodged complaint
before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra as mentioned in the F.I.R.
Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the complainant
has lodged the report as a counter blast.

19. The statement of the witnesses goes to show that there
has been a quarrel. The petitioner No.3/sister-in-law (Jethani)
is residing in the first floor of the same house. Petitioner Nos.
4, 5, 6 and 7 are living at Khalwa, District Khandwa and
Jayshree Nagar, District Dewas along with their families.
They are not residing at Rasuliya, District Hoshangabad. the
marital house of the complainant.

20. It is also to be seen that the Adhar Card, Ration Card submitted
by the petitioners indicate that they are residents of different places.
It is not uncommon in the Indian context that the family members are
roped in the domestic disputes. Therefore, following the law laid
down in Neelu Chopra Another Vs. Bharti, AIR 2009 SC
(Supp) 2950, wherein “the Supreme Court has expressed its
concern with regard to false implication of husband and his relatives
in the cases under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by
disgruntled wives. It has also been held that the tendency of falsely
implicating even those relatives of husband, who lived separately and
in different cities is also growing. It has been held that if there are no
specific and credible allegations against, with necessary particulars
against the relatives of the husband, they should not be made to
suffer the ignominy of a criminal trial,” this petition is partly
allowed. So far as the petitioner Nos. 4- Mangal, petitioner No. 5-
Chhaya Bai, petitioner No. 6- Lakhanlal Chouhan and petitioner No. 7-
Maya are concerned. the crime lodged against petitioner Nos. 4, 5, 6,
7 is quashed. So far as petitioner No. 1-Brajesh Verma, petitioner No.
2- Laxmi Verma and the petitioner No. 3- Usha Verma are concerned,
this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is dismissed.
awinash/

(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)
JUDGE

awinash

Leave a Comment

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