SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amit Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 January, 2020

M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
(SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava)

M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019.

Amit Kumar Pandey and another.
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh another.

Shri Chandrahas Dubey, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rangdev Singh, P.L. for respondent No. 1-State.

None for the respondent no. 2.

Whether approved for reporting:

Law laid down:

Significant paragraphs:

-O R D E R-

(08/01/2020)

Petitioners- accused have filed this M.Cr.C. under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceeding of criminal case no.

351/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Satna in connection with crime No. 28/2019 for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and

section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that marriage of

respondent no. 2 was solemnized with petitioner-accused No.

1 on 29.05.2013. Petitioner-accused no. 2 is father-in-law of

respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 submitted written report
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(2

on 07.03.2019 before Police Station Mahila Thana Satna. It is

mentioned in this report that petitioner-accused No. 1 is posted

as Cashier Gramin Bank Satna. They are residing at Satna since

24.04.2014. They blessed one girl, her father-in-law petitioner

no. 2 was also came there. Petitioners-accused demanded Rs.

10,00,000/- as dowry. They abused filthy language. They

tortured and humiliated her. They told her that petitioner-

accused no. 1 will solemnize another marriage because

respondent no.2 is not beautiful and mentally retarded then she

telephoned. Her parent was agreed to give Rs. 4,00,000/- but

petitioners-accused were not ready for that. She was sent her

parental house on 20.12.2018. On 14.01.2019 she reached in

the office of the petitioner-accused no. 1 where petitioner-

accused no.1 abused filthy language, he pushed her so she

returned to her parental house, thereafter on 06.03 2019 she

again reached in the house of petitioners-accused at Satna.

Petitioners-accused met her, they again demanded dowry,

abused filthy language, threatened her, so she is living in her

parental house. FIR was registered, statements of witnesses

have been recorded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused submits that

respondent no. 2 is very adamant in nature. She never takes

care of any household responsibilities and since marriage

respondent no. 2 wanted to live separate from her in-laws and
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(3

settle in separate house in Jabalpur city. But the present

petitioner-accused no. 1 being a government employee he was

posted in Gramin Bank in Village- Bamorekala, District Shivpuri.

He wanted to live with the respondent no. 2 at Village

Bamorekala but respondent no. 2 and her family members

clearly refused the same and they had put into the minds of the

respondent no. 2 that she will reside with the present

petitioner-accused No. 1 only if he agrees to live in a separate

house in the Jabalpur City and not in any villages. In the month

of December 2013 petitioner No. 1 got transferred from Village

Bamorekala District Shivpur to Satna. Respondent no. 2 again

refused to go to Satna with petitioner no. 1 and she went to for

her parental house at Bamhnoda Panager, District Jabalpur.

Petitioner no. 1 rented a house in Satna and tried to bring back

respondent no. 2 to live together at Satna, but respondent no.

2 and her parents did not agree for the same, but anyhow the

petitioner no. 1 succeeded to take back his wife and started

living with her at Satna. On 17.09.2014 daughter namely

Aradhya Pandey was born from the wedlock of petitioner no. 1

and respondent no. 2 and since birth of their daughter the

respondent no. 2 started living with her parents, therefore,

petitioner no. 1 and his relatives have visited multiple times to

in-laws house to bring back to the respondent no. 2 but

respondent no. 2 and his parents and other family members
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(4

insulted the petitioner no. 1 and his relatives. Finally

respondent no. 2 agreed to return back Satna on the condition

that parents of the petitioner no. 1 will never visited the place

where petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are residing. The

parents of petitioner-accused no. 1 living in Jabalpur and they

are not allowed to visit the resident where the petitioner no. 1

and respondent no. 2 are living. Respondent no. 2 regularly

threatens to the petitioner no. 1 that she would commit suicide

if the parents of petitioner no. 1 visit the house of the

respondent no. 2 and parents of the petitioner no. 1 are not

even allowed to enter in the house by the respondent no. 2.

Respondent no. 2 and her parents used to regularly demand

money from the petitioner no. 1, therefore, petitioner no. 1

regularly giving money in various amounts from time to time to

his mother-in-law and respondent no. 2 used to go to her

parental house without informing to the present petitioner no.

1. Respondent no. 2 abused, insulted and threaten to the

petitioner no. 1 since the marriage without any reason. Since

21.12.2018 respondent no. 2 is living at her father’s house and

she was not willing to come back to the house of petitioner no.

1. She left the house of petitioner no. 1. Respondent no. 2 and

her parents created worst situation in the marital life of the

petitioner no. 1, therefore, on 02.01.2019 petitioner no. 1 filed

an application under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(5

for grant of divorce. Respondent no. 2 received notice of the

divorce case filed by the petitioner no. 1 thereafter as a

counter blast just after 10 days respondent no. 2 approached

respondent no. 1 and presented herself to be tortured by the

petitioners-accused by concealing the real facts lodged false

report. Petitioner no. 1 and his family members already filed so

many complaints against respondent no. 2. FIR was lodged as

a counter blast, so there is no case is made out against the

petitioners-accused under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 read with

34 and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. So quash the

criminal proceeding of criminal case no. 351/2019 pending

before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna against the

petitioners-accused.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer has objected quashment of FIR

and supported proceedings of trial and submits that there is

prima-facie material available on record. Charge-sheet has

been filed so charge-sheet cannot be quashed exercising

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

6. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley AIR 2011 SC

1090 that controverted documents or material of

unimpeachable or sterling character may be considered while
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(6

exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also

clear that this is a case of matrimonial dispute.

7. This is a case of matrimonial dispute, therefore, it has to

be seen as to how to deal with a petition under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and subsequent criminal

proceedings.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of

Bihar and others reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 4019 has held

as under:-

“This Court in Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupak Gupta
and ors. (2015) 3 SCC 424, 426: (AIR 2015 SC (Supp)

684) held as follows:

“At the stage of cognizance and summoning the
Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only
with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find
out whether a prima facie case is made out for
summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the
Magistrate is not required to consider the defence
version or materials or arguments nor he is required to
evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the
complainant, because the Magistrate must not
undertake the exercise to find out at this stage
whether the materials would lead to conviction or not.”

9. The Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of

Punjab and others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207 has held

as under:-

“In the light of the evidence in the case we find
substance in the submission of the learned counsel for
the defence that respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the
case only on the ground of being close relations of
respondent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For
the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other
relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in
the demand of dowry. In cases where such
accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(7

persons other than husband are required to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and
implicationssuch relations cannot be held guilty for the
offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has,
however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-
laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry
deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the
case of the prosecution even against the real culprits.
In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek
conviction for maximum people, the parents of the
deceased have been found to be making efforts for
involving other relations which ultimately weaken the
case of the prosecution even against the real accused
as appears to have happened in the instant case.”

10. The Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta anothers

Vs. State of Jharkhand another reported in AIR 2010

SC 3363 has held as under:-

“28. It is a matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly
increasing in our country. All the courts in our country
including this court are flooded with matrimonial
cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest
in the family life of a large number of people of the
society.

29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases
emanating from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code which reads as under:-

“498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.–Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.–For
the purposes of this section,`cruelty’ means:-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(8

person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”

30. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in
the heat of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a large number
of such complaints which are not even bona fide and
are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State

of Bihar reported in 2014(8) SCC 273 has held as under:-

“4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial
disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is
greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the
IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the
menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of
her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section
498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has
lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions
that are used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get
the husband and his relatives arrested under this
provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden
grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands,
their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.
“Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National
Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows
arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the
year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC,
9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of
those arrested under this provision in 2012 were
women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and
sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their
arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons
arrested under the crimes committed under Indian
Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes
committed under different sections of penal code,
more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt.
The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section
498-A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction
rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(9

many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on
current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in
acquittal.

5. Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast
scars forever. Law makers know it so also the police.
There is a battle between the lawmakers and the
police and it seems that police has not learnt its
lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.P.C.
It has not come out of its colonial image despite six
decades of independence, it is largely considered as a
tool of harassment, oppression and surely not
considered a friend of public. The need for caution in
exercising the drastic power of arrest has been
emphasized time and again by Courts but has not
yielded desired result. Power to arrest greatly
contributes to its arrogance so also the failure of the
Magistracy to check it. Not only this, the power of
arrest is one of the lucrative sources of police
corruption. The attitude to arrest first and then
proceed with the rest is despicable. It has become a
handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity or
act with oblique motive.”

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra

and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has held as under:

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the
contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that
there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta
Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference
of their names which have been included in the FIR
but mere casual reference of the names of the family
members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation
of active involvement in the matter would not justify
taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact
borne out of experience that there is a tendency to
involve the entire family members of the household in
the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of
an apt observation of this Court recorded G.V. Rao vs.
L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(10

Court should have quashed the complaint arising out
of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members
had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which
was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that:

“12.There has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to
enable the young couple to settle down in life
and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume
serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are
also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.
There are many other reasons which need not
be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead
of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process
the parties lose their “young” days in chasing
their cases in different courts.”

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the

Courts would not encourage such disputes.”

13. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and

others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp

(1) SCC 335 as held as under:-

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reporduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(11

possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or ‘complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose
the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”

M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(12

14. In the light of aforesaid legal position I would proceed to

decide this petition.

15. It is revealed from the record that respondent no. 2

alleged demand of dowry and act of cruelty against the

petitioner no. 1. Petitioner-accused no. 1 is the husband of

respondent no. 2, so all the facts will be investigated at the

trial. It is true that petitioner-accused no. 2 filed so many

complaints against respondent no. 2 before lodging of the FIR

but alleged facts will be investigated at the trial. Respondent

no. 2 lodged complaint against the petitioner-accused no. 1,

she alleged act of cruelty demand of dowry, torture and

humiliation against the petitioner-accused no. 1. Petitioner-

accused no. 1 also alleged act of torture, humiliation against

respondent no. 2. All the facts will be investigated at the trial

co the case against the petitioner-accused no. 1 cannot be

quashed. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner-

accused no. 2. Petitioner-accused no. 2 is father-in-law of

respondent no. 2 aged 73 years old. He is residing at Jabalpur.

Respondent no. 2 and petitioner-accused no. 1 were residing at

Satna. Petitioner-accused no. 1 is employee of Gramin Bank

Satna. He rented a house in Satna so respondent no. 2 is living

with petitioner no. 1. Petitioner-accused no. 2 casually come to

Satna but no specific allegation about demand of dowry, torture

and humiliation against him. It appears that he has implicated
M.Cr.C. No. 24954/2019
(Amit Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P. another)
(13

with mala-fide intention on the ground of father of husband of

respondent no. 2. So this is a fit case in which inherent

jurisdiction can be invoked in regard to petitioner-accused no.

2-Radhika Sharad Pandey

16. In view of the above discussion, so far as petitioner-

accused No. 1-Amit Kumar Pandey is concerned, there is no

scope to invoke inherent power under Section 482. Thus,

present petition is dismissed in regard to petitioner-

accused No. 1 Amit Kumar Pandey

17. So far as it relates to petitioner-accused no. 2-

Radhika Sharan Pandey. this petition is allowed, criminal

proceeding of criminal case no. 351/2019 pending before the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in connection with crime

No. 28/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A,

294, 506 read with 34 and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

is quashed in relation to petitioner-accused No. 2 Radhika

Sharan Pandey.

17. Accordingly this petition is partly allowed.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
MISHRA
Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2020.01.09
10:37:56 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation