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 anotherK.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’