IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C.No.9033 of 2010
Amrit Lal Alias Imrat Lal ors
State of M.P. and others.
Shri S.k. Gangrade, Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Manish Soni, G.A. for the Respondent/State.
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the
Criminal Case No.839/2010 pending before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hoshangabad arising out of the FIR registered at
Crime No. 311/2010 at Police Station, Kotwali district
Hoshangabad for the offence u/s. 498-A of the IPC and
section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
giving rise to this petition are that respondent no. 2 Neetu Yadav married to petitioner no. 5 Dilip Yadav on 27.1.2008 and petitioners no. 1 and 2 are father and the brother of petitioner no. 5. Petitioner No.3 is the wife of petitioner No.2 and petitioner no. 4 is sister of petitioner No.5. Respondent no. 2 lodged a FIR against the petitioners on 20.04.2010 in the concerning police station with regard to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and have ousted her from the house and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for retaining her in the matrimonial house. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Crime No.311/10 was registered against the petitioners and after investigation was over, charge sheet was filed against them and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners with regard to commission of the aforesaid offences.
The aforesaid proceedings have been challenged on the grounds that the petitioners are innocent. There was no demand of dowry and harassment. It is further submitted that from the charge-sheet, prima facie allegations are made out against petitioner No.5 only who is the husband of respondent No.2. Petitioners No. 1 to 4 who are relatives of petitioner No.5 have been falsely implicated in this case with a view to take revenge. It is also submitted that before lodging of the FIR by respondent No.2 / complainant, matter was dealt with by the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Hoshangabad where statement (Annexure A-6) of respondent No.2 was recorded in which no averment has been made against petitioners No.1 to No.4 and she expressed that she want to live separately with her parents. In the circumstances, if the proceedings are continued it would amount to misuse of process of the Court and will cause injustice with the petitioners. Hence, it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed.
The Notice sent to respondent No.2 returned unserved with an endorsement that she does not reside at the given address. No other address of respondent No.2 is available in the record.
As this petition is pending since 2010, it is disposed of finally ex parte.
Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in view of this Court, considering the statement of respondent No.2 (Annexure A-6), it appears that petitioner No.1 to 4 have been arrayed in this petition maliciously just to take revenge. As it is a matter of common knowledge that in the matrimonial matters there is a tendency to implicate all the family members of the husband, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to see that their interest be saved and to be prevented from such type of prosecution. So far as the petitioner No.5 is concerned, there is sufficient material in the charge-sheet and in the previous statement of the respondent No.2 to prosecute him for commission of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Undoubtedly at this stage it is not required to be seen that whether the allegations are true or otherwise but when the allegations are so absurd, ambiguous or doubtful that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice. Hon’ble the Apex court in the recent judgment, Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U.P. And anr., passed in criminal appeal no. 1265/2017 dated 27.7.2017 as observed in para 14, as under :-
14. “Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.9033 of 2010 or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.”
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 no. 1 to 4, it would amount to misuse of the process of law. Hence, the petition is partly allowed. The proceedings of criminal case no. 839/2010 so far as it relates to petitioner No.1 to 4 are set aside and the proceedings against the petitioner No.5 Dilip Yadav shall remain continued.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below as well as the concerning police authority for information and compliance.