SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

Indore, Dated : 13/08/2018
Shri C.L. Yadav with Shri Shyam Singh Thakur,
Advocates for applicant.
Shri K.K. Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for respondent

no.1/State.

Shri Pranay Shukla, Advocate for respondent no.2.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.655/2011 registered by
Police Station Annpurna, District Indore for offence under
Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.

The undisputed fact is that the police after completing the
investigation has filed the charge-sheet and charges have also
been framed and evidence has begun, but neither the charge-
sheet has been challenged nor the order framing charges has
been challenged.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is the husband of complainant/respondent no.2 Smt.
Suman. The complainant had lodged a FIR on 17/10/2011 at
Police Station Dewas, District Dewas for offence under
Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC against the applicant as well as
her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law on the
allegation that she was married to the applicant on 6/5/2009 at
Indore and dowry as per the financial capacity of the father of
the complainant was given, however, few days after the
marriage, the applicant and the co-accused persons started
passing taunts that the father of the complainant has wrongly
given Maruti 800 car, whereas Maruti Swift car should have
been given and on this issue, the complainant was maltreated,
harassed and beaten by the applicant as well as the co-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
2 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

accused persons. The information with regard to maltreatment
was given by the complainant to her parents as well as her
uncle. Thereafter, she has been turned out of her matrimonial
house with a direction that unless and until the complainant
brings a Maruti Swift car, she must not come back to her
matrimonial house. Since no cause of action had arisen within
the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Dewas, therefore, it
appears that the case diary was transferred to Police Station
Annpurna, District Indore and accordingly, on 22/10/2011 the
police registered the Crime No.655/2011 at Police Station
Annpurna, District Indore. It is submitted by the counsel for the
applicant that the co-accused persons, namely, Ku. Jyoti, Smt.
Manu and Jagdish had filed a petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was registered as M.Cr.C.
No.715/2013 and after considering the allegations made
against the accused persons, this Court has quashed the FIR
registered in Crime No.655/2011 by Police Station Annpurna,
District Indore against the co-accused persons and
consequently, all other proceedings initiated on the basis of the
FIR have also been quashed. It is further submitted that the
case of the present applicant is squarely covered by the
judgment passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013. By
referring to paragraph 9 of the said judgment, it is submitted by
the counsel for the applicant that as the FIR was lodged by
way of counterblast to the proceedings under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act as well as considering the reply sent by the
respondent to the notice issued by the applicant for restitution
of conjugal rights, it is clear that no offence warranting
prosecution of the applicant has been made out.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
3 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for respondent
no.2 that this Court while considering the case of the co-
accused persons has considered the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs.
State of Jharkhand and another reported in AIR 2010 SC
3363 and had considered the allegations against the co-
accused persons in the light of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the said case and, therefore, it cannot be
said that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered
by the judgment passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013
because undisputedly the applicant is the husband and it is the
settled law that the near and dear relatives of the husband can
be prosecuted only when there is specific allegation against
the near and dear relatives of the husband. In the present
case, the allegations, which have been made against the
applicant, are specific. Even if the reply to the notice issued by
the applicant is considered, then it is clear that under the
heading “Additional Contentions” it has been specifically
mentioned by the complainant/respondent no.2 that after the
marriage and during pregnancy the applicant had beaten the
complainant on various occasions, but in order to save her
married life, the complainant was bearing all the harassment. It
is submitted that in the FIR as well as in the case diary
statement and in the reply to the notice, which was sent by the
applicant, the complainant has specifically stated that because
of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the complainant was
beaten by the applicant on various occasions. It is further
submitted that in order to make out an offence under Section
498-A of IPC, the demand of dowry is not sine qua non and
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
4 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

any act of cruelty, which may lead the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or
health, would also amount to cruelty.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
parties.

The first submission made by the counsel for the parties
is that the respondent is residing in her parents home from
26/2/2011, whereas the marriage was performed on 6/5/2009
and the respondent gave birth to a child on 6/2/2011. On
25/7/2011 a notice for restitution of conjugal rights was issued
and ultimately on 30/8/2011 the applicant filed a petition under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal
rights and by way of counterblast, on 17/10/2011 the FIR was
lodged at Police Station Dewas. It is submitted by the counsel
for the applicant that since the FIR in question has been
lodged by way of counterblast to the proceedings under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the same is
liable to be quashed.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
applicant. The ground raised by the applicant is no more res
integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha vs.
Rameshwari Devi and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369
has held as under:-

“15. In our view, in the facts and
circumstance of the case, the High Court
was not justified in drawing an adverse
inference against the appellant wife for
lodging the FIR on 31-12-2001 on the ground
that she had left the matrimonial home at
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
5 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

least six months before that. This is because,
in our view, the High Court had failed to
appreciate that the appellant and her family
members were, during this period, making all
possible efforts to enter into a settlement so
that Respondent 2 husband would take her
back to the matrimonial home. If any
complaint was made during this period, there
was every possibility of not entering into any
settlement with Respondent 2 husband.

16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint
was filed only when all efforts to return to the
matrimonial home had failed and
Respondent 2 husband had filed a divorce
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in our view,
filing of a divorce petition in a civil court
cannot be a ground to quash criminal
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code
as it is well settled that criminal and civil
proceedings are separate and independent
and the pendency of a civil proceeding
cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding
even if they arise out of the same set of
facts. Such being the position, we are,
therefore, of the view that the High Court
while exercising its powers under Section
482 of the Code has gone beyond the
allegations made in the FIR and has acted in
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
6 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the
High Court was not justified in quashing the
FIR by going beyond the allegations made in
the FIR or by relying on extraneous
considerations.”

It is clear from the documents, which have been placed
on record that the respondent did not take any legal action
against the applicant and she might be under the hope and
belief that the behaviour of the applicant may improve at any
point of time and thus, when she realized that the applicant has
started taking legal remedies, then if the complainant decided
to lodge the FIR against the applicant, then it cannot be said
that the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 was nothing but
was by way of counterblast to the proceedings under Section 9
of the Hindu Marriage Act.

It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant that
the allegations made in the FIR as well as the case diary
statements of the complainant and her witnesses have already
been taken into consideration by this Court while deciding
M.Cr.C. No.715/2013 and when this Court has already come to
a conclusion that the said allegations are not sufficient for
prosecuting the co-accused persons, then the same analogy
drawn by this Court would apply to the facts of the present
case also. By referring to paragraph 11 of the order passed by
this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013, it is submitted by the
counsel for the applicant that this Court has considered the
additional contentions referred by the respondent no.2 in her
reply to the notice.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
7 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

for the applicant and have also gone through the order passed
by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013. In paragraph 11 of the
said order this Court has considered the additional contentions
mentioned in the reply to the notice issued by the applicant for
restitution of conjugal rights, however, the allegations made in
paragraph 2 of the said reply were not considered by this Court
for the simple reason that the contents of paragraph 2 are
against the applicant only and have nothing to do with the co-
accused persons. Paragraph 2 of the additional contentions
mentioned in the reply to show-cause notice is reproduced as
under:-

^^2- ;g fd fookg ds i’pkr rFkk izsxusUlh ds nkSjku dbZ
ckj vkids i{kdkj }kjk jkr esa gekjh i{kdkj ds lkFk ekjihV
Hkh dbZ fdUrq gekjh i{kdkj ;g lc lgrh jghA^^
Thus, it is clear that in the reply itself the respondent no.2
had specifically mentioned that the applicant also used to beat
her even during the period of pregnancy. Whether the cruelty
was in relation to demand of dowry and non-fulfillment of the
same or was for any other reason, but the same would bring
the said act within the definition of cruelty under Section 498-A
of IPC, therefore, the allegations made in paragraph 2 of the
reply sent by the respondent no.2 is sufficient to prima facie
hold that there are specific allegations against the applicant
pointing out his cruel behaviour towards respondent no.2.

Even otherwise, it is well established principle of law that if the
complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, then
the FIR has to be registered. So far as the judgment passed by
this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013 is concerned, in that case
the allegations were considered in the light of the fact that the
accused persons were the near and dear relatives of the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
8 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

applicant. The applicant is undisputedly the husband of the
complainant/respondent no.2 and his position cannot be
equated with his near and dear relatives. Thus, this Court is of
the considered opinion that although this Court might have
quashed the proceedings against the accused persons on the
basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Preeti Gupta (supra), but in view of the specific allegations
made in the FIR, case diary statement as well as in the reply to
the notice sent by the applicant, there are prima facie
allegations against the applicant warranting his prosecution.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent
no.2 that although the application filed by the applicant under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed, but in spite
of that the applicant did not take any step for restitution of his
married life. On the contrary, it is respondent no.2, who has
filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for execution
of the said decree, which clearly shows that in fact it is the
applicant who does not want to keep respondent no.2 with him
and it was the applicant whose behaviour is cruel. It is further
submitted that the petition filed by the applicant under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been dismissed.

Although respondent no.2 has not placed any document
on record to substantiate her submissions, but the submissions
made by the counsel for respondent no.2 are not controverted
by the counsel for the applicant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that the FIR in Crime No.655/2011
registered by Police Station Annpurna, District Indore for
offence under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC cannot be
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
9 M.Cr.C. No.1632/2015
(Deepak Patel Vs. State of M.P. and another)

quashed qua the applicant. Furthermore, charge-sheet has
already been filed, charges have been framed and evidence
has also begun, but for the reasons best known to the
applicant, neither the charge-sheet was challenged nor the
order framing charges has been challenged, although this
application has been filed in the year 2015 and by that time the
charge-sheet was already filed and charges were already
framed by order dated 28/3/2012.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Arun*

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2018.08.14 18:39:31 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh