1 MCRC No. 10487/2018
Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
BENCH AT GWALIOR

(Single Bench)

MISC. CRI. CASE NO.10487/2018

Manish Raghuvanshi others ….. APPLICANTS
Versus
State of MP and another ….. NON-APPLICANTS

CORAM

Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

——————————————————————————–

Appearance

Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Applicants.

Ms. Gayitri Surve, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-
Applicant No.1/State.

——————————————————————————
Whether approved for Reporting : No

Reserved on : 19-02-2019
——————————————————————————

ORDER

(Passed on 26th March, 2019)

This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been

preferred by the applicants invoking the inherent powers of this

court, for quashing the FIR dated 24.2.2018 registered by Police
2 MCRC No. 10487/2018
Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

Station Lateri, District Vidisha, in Crime No. 33/2018 alleging

offences punishable u/Ss. 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the consequential

proceedings initiated against applicants No. 1 to 3, who are

husband, brother-in-law (Jeth) and mother-in-law, respectively of

the victim/respondent No.2.

2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that the applicant No.1

has married with the non-applicant No.2 on 10.6.2003 at Guna.

After the marriage, the applicant No.1 and complainant started

residing at Royal City, Tahsil Sironj, District Vidisha, whereas the

applicants No.2 and 3 were residing separately in main market,

Tahsil Lateri, District Vidisha. It is alleged by the complainant that

after the marriae, husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law

started demanding dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- whereas as per

complainant, her father had given jewelry of approximately

Rs.15,00,000/-. The applicant No.1 used to torture the

complainant. It is further mentioned in the complaint that from the

wedlock of applicant No.1 and complainant, two children were

born, namely, Lakshita and Daksh. It is alleged by the complainant

that on 18.2.2018, the complainant lodged the report at Police

Station, Guna regarding demand of dowry, however the same was

transferred to Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha and thereafter

the FIR has been registered as aforesaid.

3 MCRC No. 10487/2018

Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that the

allegations made in the FIR are not correct and the applicants have

been falsely implicated, therefore, the registration of the FIR is

itself bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law. The

applicants No.2 and 3 are residing separately from the applicant

No.1 in a different Tahsil, therefore, there is no possibility of the

applicants No.2 and 3 having indulged in day-to-day affairs of

applicant No.1 and complainant. The allegations made against the

applicants No.2 and 3 are vague, non-specific and therefore,

continuance of a case under Section 498-A of IPC read with

Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is totally illegal and

amounts to abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the

applicant No.1 and the complainant were having good relation and

they have taken care of their children, who are studying in convent

school. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that

complainant herself has gone with one Manish Malviya, resident

of Harda as she was having certain intimacy with him. The brother

of the complainant lodged the missing report No. 12/2018 at

Police Station, Guna wherein it is clearly mentioned that the

complainant had gone at her own along with two children with

said Manish Malviya. Even as per the report and the message, she

was seen with Manish Malviya, resident of Harda, on 19.2.2018

along with two children. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant
4 MCRC No. 10487/2018
Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

is roaming with some other person and since she was caught, a

false case has been registered against the applicants for demanding

dowry. It is also submitted that there is no specific allegation or

detail regarding the date when the alleged demand was made and

cruel treatment was done with her. Rather, the applicants

purchased some properties in the name of complainant at two-

three occasions. If the intention of the applicant was at all to

harass the complainant, then certainly he would not have

purchased the properties in the name of the complainant.

Therefore, it is clear that the complainant/respondent No.2 is

trying to falsely implicate the present applicants as she wants to

remain with some other person and the alleged report made by the

complainant is nothing but an attempt to save her prestige since

she was caught by the family members with her paramour. On

these premises, learned counsel for the applicants prayed for

quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the

applicants. Leaned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the

decision rendered in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others vs.

State of UP [2017(3) MPLJ (Cri) 178], wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court, dealing with the situation in which false reports are

being filed under Section 498-A of IPC, has issued detailed

guidelines to deal with the cases under Section 498-A of IPC.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that
5 MCRC No. 10487/2018
Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

the FIR reveals harassment and demand made to the prosecutrix,

therefore, it is not a fit case for quashment of the FIR. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

6. Section 498-A of IPC reads as under:-

“498A. 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 purpose 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
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.”

A bare perusal of the above provision, especially the

explanation of the term cruelty elicits that the same is divided into

two categories. The first is willful conduct of such nature which is

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave

injury or danger of life, limb or health (whether mental or

physical) of the woman whereas the second category is harassment

with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any
6 MCRC No. 10487/2018
Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or on

account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such

demand.

7. On the anvil of the aforesaid provision, if the FIR lodged by

the complainant is seen, it is evident that there is general and

omnibus allegation against the applicant No.1-husband and his

family members and are not sufficient to compel them to face the

ordeal of trial. For the allegation of cruelty to qualify the test of

section 498A, it is necessary that cruelty alleged is of such nature

which is likely to drive the prosecutrix to commit suicide or to

cause grave danger of her life, limb or health (mental or physical)

or such harassment is meted out to the prosecutrix with a view to

coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand for

property or valuable security. The allegations as reflected in the

FIR do not, in the considered opinion of this court, satisfy the

stringent definition of cruelty contained in Explanation (a) to

section 498 A of IPC.

8. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the applicant

No.2 (Jeth) and applicant No.3 (mother-in-law) are residing

separately from the applicant No.1 in a different Tahsil. In one of

the recent decisions in the case of K.Subba Rao Ors. Vs. The

State of Telangana Ors. in Cr.A. No. 1045/18 (decided on

21/8/18), Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court while
7 MCRC No. 10487/2018
Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

quashing the prosecution of maternal uncle of the husband has

cautioned the court to be careful in proceedings against distant

relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry

deaths. Relevant paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of the said judgment is

reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

“5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted
by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an
abuse of process of a Court. This Court, at the same
time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the
ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be
careful in proceeding against the distant relatives
in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and
dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should
not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations
unless specific instances of their involvement in the
crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab
Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra
Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.
(2014) 16 SCC 551.

6. The counsel for the second Respondent submitted
that certain documents belonging to the second
Respondent were seized from the Appellants which
would show their active involvement in the
kidnapping of her child. On an overall
consideration of the contents of the charge sheet,
supplementary charge sheet and the submissions
made on behalf of the Respondent No.2, we are of
the opinion that a prima facie case has not been
made out against the Appellants for proceeding
against them under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420 and
365 IPC.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the
proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of
2015, dated 20.12.2015 under Sections 498 A, 120
B, 420, 365 IPC registered at Chandanagar Police
Station, Cyberabad before the Court of IX,
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur,
Cyberabad, Commissionerate. In view of above and
the recent decision of Apex Court in the case of
8 MCRC No. 10487/2018
Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

K.Subba Rao (supra), the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Taramani Prakash (supra)
cited by the prosecution, is of no avail to the
victim.”

9. In the case in hand, one IA No. 8939/2018 has been filed by

the applicants for taking document on record. It is submitted in the

application that during the pendency of this petition, the applicants

submitted an application to DIG, Bhopal praying for enquiry into

the matter with regard to false implication of the present

applicants. On enquiry, it has come on record that the complainant

does not want to live with her husband and therefore false case has

been registered against the applicants so that the complainant may

live with her paramour. In support of the same, copies of the report

and statements have been filed by the applicants, which go to

show that the complainant was residing in Harda with one Manish

Malviya along with her children and she does not want to live with

the applicant No.1. The investigation report submitted by SDO (P)

Lateri, District Vidisha further reveals that the complainant in

Harda Court had submitted an affidavit in favour of Manish

Malviya and requested not to take any action against Manish

Malviya. One more unique feature in the case is that in the

statement of Harshit Raghuvanshi, brother of the complainant,

recorded by the concerning police, he himself has stated that her

sister (complainant) is residing with Manish Malviya who has
9 MCRC No. 10487/2018
Manish Raghuvanshi and others vs. State of MP and another

eloped her and he requested for taking action against Manish

Malviya.

10. Thus, the facts and circumstances narrated above goes to

indicate that the prosecution launched against the applicants is an

abuse of the process of law and therefore, in terms of the decision

of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana ors. Vs.

Bhajanlal ors. [1992 (1) SCC 335], this court deems it

appropriate to quash the FIR bearing crime No. 33/2018 registered

at Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha alleging offences

punishable u/S. 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential criminal

proceedings against the present applicants.

11. Resultantly, the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC is

hereby allowed and the FIR dated 24.2.2018 bearing crime No.

33/2018 registered at Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha

alleging offences punishable u/S. 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all

consequential criminal proceedings against the present applicants

are hereby quashed.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge.

(yog)

YOGESH VERMA
2019.03.27
10:52:03 +05’30’