THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ASHOK KUAMR TANWAR
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 22-02-2018
Shri Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the
Shri Darshan Soni, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
e This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the ad petitioners for quashment of the proceedings of criminal case Pr no.2510/2011 pending before the JMFC, Satna (M.P.) under Sections 498-A, 323 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Dowry a hy Prohibition Act arising out of the crime no.4/2011 registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Satna.
ad The facts giving rise to this petition are that the marriage of M respondent no.3/Aditya Tanwar was solemnized with complainant / respondent no. 2 Smt. Preeti singh on 14.02.2009 at Bhopal and of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are parents of respondent no.3 and rt petitioner no.3 is brother of respondent no.3 and on behalf of ou respondent no.2 a written complaint was filed before the Mahila Police Station, Satna, alleging that after the marriage respondent no.2 was C residing at Bhopal along with respondent no.3 and with other h petitioners in the same house. The petitioners used to harass her in ig connection with demand of dowry and also in the parental house H situated at Satna. On the basis of the written complaint, at Police Station-Mahila Thana crime no.4/2011 was registered and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Satna and cognizance was taken against respondent no.3, husband of the complainant and trial is still pending.
The aforesaid proceedings has been challenged by this petition on the grounds that the allegations against the petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 are false and malice and just to take revenge from respondent no.3 they are being harassed. The petitioners are residing separately from the respondents from 04.03.2009 and the allegation with regard to the demand of dowry and harassment as alleged was taken place since 2011. Hence, proceedings pending against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 submits that the ground raised for quashment are related to the family dispute. Hence, the proceedings can’t be quashed at initial stage as correctness of the ground is to be decided after the trial. Hence, the petition be dismissed.
Having considered the contention of learned counsel for the sh parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that Annexures A/2, e A/3, A/4, A/5 and A/6 which are the documents received from the ad State Bank, Income Tax Department and Human Resources Ministry Pr of India and LIC, in which respondent no.2 has shown different addresses, where the petitioners were residing at Bhoapl and a truthfulness of the aforesaid documents has not been challenged here.
hy The aforesaid facts, apparently indicate that respondent no.2 has been ad residing separately from the petitioners since 16.10.2009. Therefore, M allegation with regard to demand of dowry and harassment against the petitioners are since 2011.
of Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also submitted that there is a complaint with regard to demand of dowry dated rt 15.09.2009. In view of this Court merely, on the basis of such type of ou averments, it can’t be said that the petitioners were involved C continuously in harassment and torture of respondent no.2. It is a h matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial dispute in the heat ig of passion for taking revenge, there is the tendency to file false H complaint of demand of dowry, torture and harassment against the family members of the applicants. In such cases, it is the duty of the Court to prevent the complainant to misuse the process of Court for harassment. Primafacie, it is a case of such nature therefore, deserves to be quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 and relevant para reproduced as under:-
“14. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised;
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of sh these complaints under Section 498A of IPC are filed in the e heat of the moment over trivail issues without proper ad deliberations. We come across a large number of such Pr complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the a number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a hy matter of serious concern.
37. Before parting with this case, we would like to M observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common of knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of rt over implication is also reflected in a very large number of ou cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all C concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not h be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy. ig Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not H only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.” In view of the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are kept continued against petitioners, it would amount to misuse of the process of law. Hence, the petition is allowed. The proceedings of criminal case no. 2510/2011 so far, it relates to the petitioners is set aside.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below as well as the concerning police authority for information and compliance.
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE