SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammed Sajid vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2020

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/2018

Mohammed Sajid and others

Vs

The State of MP and another

————————————————————————————
Ms. Rounak Bano, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri R.D. Singh, learned P.L. for the respondent No.1/State.
———————————————————————————–

ORDER

(10.01.2020)

Petitioners/accused have filed this miscellaneous crimi-

nal case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. and its

entire criminal proceedings arising out of crime No. 45/2017 dated

11.10.2017, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sagar

for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34 of Indian Pe-

nal Code and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of re-

spondent No.2 was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Mohd. Sajid

dated 18.6.2012 according to Muslim rites and customs.

Petitioner/accused No.2 Munna Master is father-in-law, petitioner/ac-

cused No.3 Smt. Jameela is mother-in-law, petitioner/accused No.4

Jahid is brother-in-law and petitioner/accused No.5 Smt. Mubina is

sister-in-law of the respondent No.2. At the time of her marriage, pe-

titioners/accused demanded dowry of Rs.5 Lacs. At the time of mar-
2

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

riage, the father of the respondent No.2 had given sufficient dowry to

the petitioners/accused. From the wedlock of petitioner/accused No.1

and respondent No.2, they have been blessed with a male child. Peti-

tioners/accused humiliated and tortured her. Petitioner/accused No.1

remared the respondent No.2 on his color and told her the he will

marry with another girl who will give Rs.2 Lacs for open a Mechanic

shop. Petitioners/accused humiliated and tortured her, they threw out

from her matrimonial house dated 15.8.2014. Respondent No.2 was

tortured by the petitioners/accused. Petitioner/accused No.5

Mubeena is sister-in-law who is residing with her husband and child

in Sadar at Sagar. She used to come daily in the matrimonial house of

respondent No.2. She also tortured and humiliated her due to non-ful-

filment of said dowry and refused to keep her. So on 17.8.2017, re-

spondent No.2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Mahila Thana,

Sagar. Thereafter, during the investigation, statements of respondent

No.2, Indrajeet Singh, Smt. Bhagwati Keer, Smt. Asha Raikwar and

Gajraj Singh Raikwar have been recorded. Petitioners/accused were

arrested and charge-sheet has also been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that

immediately after the marriage, the behavior of respondent No.2

turned cruel towards the petitioners/accused and she does not want to

live with the petitioner/accused No.1 as his wife. Respondent No.2

told to the petitioners/accused that she had some affair with another

person at Jabalpur. So she was not mentally prepare to accept the pe-

titioner/accused No.1 as her husband. After sometime, she went to

her parents and did not return back to her matrimonial house. So pe-
3

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

titioner/accused No.1 filed a petition before learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Sagar for Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the re-

spondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was summoned and on 23.02.2015

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar passed the judgment

and decree in favour of petitioner/accused No.1. Respondent No.2

was directed to live with the petitioner/accused No.1 but respondent

No.2 refused to obey the order of learned Family Court, Sagar.

4. In the year of 2016, the respondent No.2 preferred a case

under Domestic Violence Act against the present petitioners/accused

on the basis of cruelty and harassment arising out of the demand of

dowry. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar heard both the

parties, thereafter, he found that no cruelty is done by the

petitioners/accused with the respondent No.2, the application under

Domestic Violence Act was rejected vide order dated 07.06.2018.

Respondent No.2 also filed an application under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C. that petitioner/accused No.1 is complying the order passed by

the trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Petitioners/accused did

not commit any offence and they have falsely been implicated in this

case. There are only general and omnibus allegations of demand of

dowry and cruelty, have been made. The petitioners/accused have

neither demanded any dowry from the respondent No.2 nor they ha-

rassed and tortured her. Respondent No.2 lodged the complaint

against the petitioners/accused, is after thought. Since the behavior of

respondent No.2 was so cruel and adamant towards the petitioners/ac-

cused and she did not live with the petitioner/accused No.1, she

lodged a complaint just to unnecessarily harass and victimize the peti-
4

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

tioners/accused. Respondent No.2 lodged the F.I.R. on 11.10.2017

when a decree of Conjugal Rights had already been passed against the

respondent No.2 dated 23.02.2015, but she did not want to live with

petitioner/accused No.1. then he gave divorce to the respondent

No.2. Therefore, there is no prima facie allegation about demand of

dowry and cruelty. So there is no case is made out against the peti-

tioners/accused. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing of this peti-

tion and proceeding deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State op-

poses the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submits that there is, prima facia, allegation about the demand of

dowry and cruelty against the petitioners/accused is available on

record. So there is no case in favour of petitioners/accused on which

this proceeding can be quashed. Therefore, this petition may be dis-

missed.

6. Heard the parties and perused the case.

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 un-

der:-

“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 Magis-
trate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a
view to take cognizance of the offence to find out
5

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

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 materi-
als 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 exer-
cise 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 un-

der:-

“In the light of the evidence in the case we find sub-
stance 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 respon-
dent No.2, the husband of the deceased. For the fault
of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations can-
not, 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 persons other than husband
are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By
mere conjectures and implicationssuch relations can-
not 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 in-
stant 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 unfortu-
nately 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 fam-
ily life of a large number of people of the society.

6

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

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 impris-
onment for a term which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.–For the pur-
poses 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.”

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 ha-
rassment are also a matter of serious concern.

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

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

“4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial dis-
putes 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 Bu-
reau, 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
7

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

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 sec-
tions of penal code, more than any other crimes ex-
cepting 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 many as 3,72,706 cases are pend-
ing 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 ha-
rassment, 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 refer-
ence of the names of the family members in a matrimo-
nial 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 mem-
bers 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
8

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

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 matri-
monial 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 help-
less 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 liti-
gation so that the parties may ponder over their de-
faults 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.”

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

Courts would not encourage such disputes.”

14. In the case of State of Harayana Vs. Bhajan Lal and

others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 the Hon’ble Apex court has

held as under:-

“(1) where the allegations made in the First Informa-
tion 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 Re-
port 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 Mag-
istrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;

(3) where the un-controverted 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 ac-
cused;

9

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cog-
nizable 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 com-
plaint 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 at-
tended with malafide 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.”

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

decide this petition. It is admitted fact that the marriage of respondent

No.2 was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 18.06.2012. This fact is

also admitted that respondent No.2 was living separately from the pe-

titioners/accused No.1 since 15.08.2014. She lodged a complaint

against the petitioners/accused on 11.10.2017. Petitioner/accused

No.5 is sister-in-law of respondent No.2. She is married and she was

living separately with her husband and children from the respondent

No.2 and petitioner/accused No.1. So there is no specific allegations

against the petitioner/accused No.5 about demand of dowry and cru-

elty.

16. So it is evident that petitioner/accused No.5 has been im-

plicated in the case only on the basis of her relation sister with the pe-

titioner/accused No.1. She is living separately from the respondent

No.2 and other petitioners/accused. Therefore, there is no reason to
10

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

demand dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same, she tortured

and humiliated the respondent No.2. It is clear that respondent No. 2

implicated petitioner/accused No. 5 with mala fide intention, so it is

a proper case in which the inherent power can be invoked to set aside

the proceeding in the regard of petitioner/accused. 5.

17. Petitioner/accused No.4 Jahid is brother-in-law of

respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 deposed before the Judicial

Magistrate First Class in MJC No. 4101290/16 under Domestic

Violence Act that petitioner/accused No.4 is residing upper story of

same house, so it is evident that petitioner/accused No. 4 is also

residing separate from other petitioners/accused and respondent No.

2. There is general allegation against the petitioners/accused No.4. No

specific act attributed about demand of dowry and cruelty to

petitioner No. 4. So it appears that petitioner No. 4 is also implicated

by respondent No. 2 in this case with mala fide intention only on the

ground that petitioner No. 4 is brother of husband of respondent No.

2. So this is a proper case in which the inherent power can be invoked

to set aside the proceeding in the regard of petitioner/accused No.4.

18. It is not disputed that petitioner/accused No. 1 is the

husband of respondent No. 2 and petitioner/accused No. 2 and 3 are

father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No. 2, respectively.

Respondent No. 2 was residing with these petitioners/accused.

Respondent No. 2 alleged demand of dowry and act of cruelty against

these petitioners/accused. During the investigation, statements of

witnesses have been recorded, they also alleged act of demand of

dowry and cruelty against these petitioners/accused. Learned counsel
11

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

for the petitioner/accused No. 1 to 3 submits that respondent No. 2

loved one person so she did not want to live with the

petitioner/accused No. 1. Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial

home without any reasonable cause then petitioner/accused No.1 filed

a civil suit No. 202-A/2014 for conjugal right before Principal Judge

Family Court, Sagar. A notice was issued to the respondent No. 2 but

she did not appear before the Family Court, then ex-parte order was

passed in favour of petitioner/accused No.1. Learned Principal Judge,

Family Court directed respondent No. 2 to return matrimonial home

for performing conjugal right with petitioner No. 1 but respondent

No. 2 did not comply with that order. Thereafter petitioner/accused

No. 1 gave a divorce to the respondent No. 2 on 28.12.2015.

Respondent No. 2 filed a petition against the petitioners/accused

under Domestic Violence Act but petition was dismissed. Therefore,

respondent No. 2 lodged a false report against the petitioners with

mala fide intention. It is clear that proceeding of criminal case and

civil suit are separate. It is also cleared that respondent No. 2 filed a

petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to get maintenance from the

petitioner No. 1. Her application was allowed and learned Court

directed to the petitioner/accused No. 1 to pay the maintenance

amount to respondent No. 2 and her child. Therefore, it is cleared that

respondent No. 2 is living separately from petitioner No. 1.

Respondent No. 2 alleged against the petitioner/accused No. 1 to 3 for

demand of dowry and act of cruelty . These allegations will be

investigated at the stage of trial. Allegation of petitioners/accused is

also will be investigated at the stage of trial. Prima facie, it cannot be
12

M.Cr.C. No. 51565/18

said that the allegation against the petitioners/accused are completely

base less so this is not a proper case, in which the inherent power can

be invoked in regard of petitioners No. 1 to 3.

19. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. FIR dated

11.10.2017 vide Crime No. 45/2017 registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana, District Sagar and criminal proceeding are quashed in

relation to petitioners No. 4 and 5. So far as petitioners No. 1 to 3 are

concerned, this petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Kumar Srivastava)
Judge

Nitesh/L.R.

Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH
RANA
Date: 2020.01.17 17:08:51 +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