—

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt.Savita Tamrakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 7000 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
1. SMT.SAVITA TAMRAKAR W/O DR. VINOD B.
TAMRAKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR, MAHAKOSHAL
HOSPITAL JABALPUR R/O 3, PATRAKAR COLONY,
RANITAL JABALPUR DISTT. JABALPUR M.P
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DR. VINOD BABU TAMRAKAR S/O LATE SHRI
SURYABALI TAMRAKAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR MAHAKOSHAL
HOSPITAL JABALPUR R/O 3 PATRAKAR COLONY,
RANITAL JABLPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DR. ARJIT V. TAMRAKAR S/O DR. VINOD B.
TAMRAKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DNB II YEAR RESIDENT IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY OF H.B.T.
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND DR. R.N. COOPER
HOSPITAL MUMBAI 56 R/O ROOM NO. 205 R.M.O.
QUARTER, COOPER HOSPITAL JUHU, MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)

4. DR. AKSHAY V. TAMRAKAR S/O DR. VINOD B.
TAMRAKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRESENTLY POSTED AS DNB
RESIDENT SANJAY GANDHI MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL S. BLOCK MANGOLPURI DEHLI R/O
NOUSE NO. B – 358 FIRST FLOOR, PVR ROAD
PRASHANT VIHAR ROHINI SECTOR- 14 DEHLI
(DELHI)

…..PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY RAM TAMRAKAR – ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT,
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. DISTT.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE POLICE
H E A D Q U A R T E R S BURHANPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)

3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
LALBAGH POLICE HEADQUARTERS DISTT.
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DR. SHRASHTI TAMRAKAR W/O AKSHAY
TAMRAKAR D/O HARINARAYAN TAMRAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DOCTOR
R/O C.K. GREEN COLONY, LALBAGH BURHANPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI B.K. UPADHYAY – DY. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI
ATUL JAIN – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of
FIR bearing Crime No.0037/2021 dated 13/01/2021 (Annexure P/13) registered
at Police Station Lalbagh, District Burhanpur and also ensued proceedings.

2. It is contended by the counsel that marriage of petitioner No.4 and
respondent No.4 was solemnized on 17/01/2019. After marriage, respondent
No.4 did not agree to reside with the parents and brother of petitioner No.4 who
are petitioner No.1 2 and 3 respectively. The petitioner No.4 had to go to
pursue his diploma in ENT. After completion of diploma, the petitioner No.4
was posted at Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar where he stayed in guest
house with respondent No.4. The petitioner No.4 then appointed as DNB
(residency) in ENT in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and a rental
accommodation was taken by the petitioner No.4 at Prashant Vihar, Rohni
Sector 14, New Delhi. The respondent No.4 was living with petitioner No.4,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
3
however, her behavior was humiliating towards petitioner No.4, yet the
petitioner No.4 was making all efforts to save his marriage, but there was no
change in the attitude of respondent No.4. Thus, the petitioner No.4 by way of
abundant caution lodged a complaint with the police at New Delhi on
03/11/2020 and thereafter an application was also filed by petitioner No.4 under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 09/11/2020. The respondent No.4 as a
counter blast to the filing of application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, proceeded to lodge FIR in question against the present petitioners while
levelling the omnibus, vague and bald allegations of demand of dowry and also
cruelty against the petitioners. Thus, assailing the FIR and further proceedings,
this petition has been filed.

3. It is contended by the counsel that the case under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, was filed by the petitioner No.4 on 09/11/2020 and the FIR
by respondent No.4 had been lodged on 13/01/2021, therefore, the FIR as well
as ensued proceedings deserve quashment. It is also submitted that petitioner
Nos.1, 2 and 3 who are not even residing with the respondent No.4 at New
Delhi have been falsely implicated. It is also contended by the counsel that the
implication of the relatives/family members of the husband, is no more unknown
phenomena and in cases of demand of dowry and cruelty, unnecessarily the
relatives/family members of the husband are implicated. It is also contended by

the counsel that the information given by the present petitioners to the police
apprehending the proposed action by respondent No.4 is also on record and
perusal of which clearly reflects that the petitioner No.4 was anticipating some
overt act on the part of respondent No.4. Learned counsel while referring to IA
No.18454/2023 submits that along with said application, a copy of letter dated

Signature Not Verified
29/12/2020 given by respondent No.4 to the Police Station Prashant Vihar, New
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
4

Delhi has been filed which has been produced by respondent No.4 herself in the
proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The said letter reflects that while
leaving from Delhi, the said letter was given by respondent No.4 to the police
and in the said letter, it was clearly stated by respondent No.4 that she was
residing with her husband since last six months in Prashant Vihar, New Delhi. It
is thus contended by the counsel that the allegations levelled in the FIR that just
before 15 days from the lodging of FIR, respondent No.4 was subjected to
cruelty at the behest of the petitioners is basically ill founded and the allegations
do not hold the field. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that
petitioner Nos.1,2 and 3 are living separately from petitioner No.4 and therefore,
their implication is causing serious prejudice as well as immense hard-ship to
them as no specific allegations have been levelled against them.

4. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners
placed reliance in M.Cr.C. No.59501/2021 in (Smt. Geetababi Khambra
and Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.) and in M.Cr.C.
No.10044/2019 (Sanjay Sthapak 4 Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Anr.) and
the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Maheshwari
and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Ors.)

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the
specific allegations have been levelled against the present petitioners. The
respondent No.4 was subjected to cruelty at the behest of present petitioners. It
is contended by the counsel that application filed by petitioner No.4 under
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, reflects that the same was filed on
09/11/2020 and was registered on 14/01/2021. Prior to registration of said case,
respondent No.4 had already lodged the FIR on 13/01/2021, therefore, was not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
5
even aware about the filing of any case by petitioner No.4 under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also contended by the counsel that immediately
after the date of marriage, respondent No.4 was ill treated and respondent No.4
was subjected to cruelty. It is further contended by the counsel that interference
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not warranted in the present case and
resultantly this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be
dismissed.

6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court
in the case of Neeeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 and the
judgment of this Court in the cases of Sanjay Khusaldas Sahu and Ors. Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. in M.Cr.C. No.52089/2021 and
Smt. Sadhna Jain and Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. in
M.Cr.C. No.31498/2023

7. learned counsel for the State has also supported the contentions so
advanced by the counsel for respondent No.4 and submits that the present
petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

9. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

10. The record reflects that the marriage of petitioner No.4 and
respondent No.4 was solemnized on 17/01/2019. Thereafter, according to
respondent No.4 as she was being ill treated and was subjected to various
instances of cruelty, was pitchforked to lodge FIR against the present
petitioners. The FIR which has been brought on record as Annexure P/13
reveals that in the said report, it was alleged by respondent No.4 that after her
marriage on 17/01/2019, demand was made by the present petitioners regarding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
6
dowry and respondent No.4 was also ill treated. As per allegations all the
petitioners imposed a condition that if the respondent No.4 brings
Rs.50,00,000/-, Gold chain, Ring and SUV Car, then only respondent No.4
shall be allowed to reside with the petitioners.When the respondent No.4
informed the said incident to her parents, they expressed that they were not in a
position to fulfill the demand of petitioners, and the said aspect when was
brought to the notice of the present petitioners, they started torturing the
respondent No.4 and on various occasions she was manhandled/assaulted.

11. The report further reveals that it was alleged in the FIR dated
13/01/2021 that just before 15 before lodging the FIR, respondent No.4 beaten
by the petitioners and she was made to sit in a train and then she came to her
parents house at Burhanpur. A perusal of FIR if carefully perused, the same
would reveal that in the entire FIR lodged on 13/01/2021, there is no mention by
respondent No.4 that she was residing at New Delhi and the same does not refer
to the posting of petitioner No.4 at New Delhi. Though, the

complainant/respondent No.4 in the FIR, mentioned the address of petitioner
No.4 of Prashant Vihar, Rohni Sector 14 New Delhi, but in the entire FIR there
is no reference to petitioner No.4’s posting at New Delhi or the respondent No.4
residing with petitioner No.4 at New Delhi. At this juncture, it is important to
take into consideration the letter dated 29/12/2020 given by respondent No.4 to
Police Station Prashant Vihar, New Delhi.

12. A perusal of the said letter which has been produced by
respondent No.4 in the proceedings instituted by respondent No.4 under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C, reflects that in the said letter, respondent No.4 informed
the police that respondent No.4 was residing with petitioner No.4 at New Delhi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
7
since 6 months but the behavior of her husband/petitioner No.4 was not proper
and the father and mother of respondent No.4 came to persuade the petitioner
No.4, yet he did not listen to them. Thus, informing the said events to the
police, respondent No.4 left Delhi. Thus, this letter dated 29/12/2020 reflects
that since last 6 months from the date of submitting the said letter, respondent
No.4 was residing with petitioner No.4 at New Delhi. The entire FIR nowhere
refers to respondent No.4 residing at New Delhi, therefore, it is apparent that the
allegations levelled in the FIR so far as petitioner Nos.1, 2 3 are concerned,
they are vague and unsustainable. It is further evident from perusal of FIR that
the same is entirely silent as regards dates, place and time on which respondent
no.4 was subjected to cruelty at the behest of petitioner Nos.1, 2 3. The
specific allegations are not available in the FIR. The specific role of each
appellant has also not been mentioned in the FIR. The FIR lacks in specific
details and only omnibus, bald and vague allegations have been levelled against
the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3.

13. The Apex Court has considered the aspect of implication of
relatives/family members of the husband in matrimonial cases and while dealing
with the other cases recently, the the Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan
Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6SCC
599] in paragraphs 16 and 18 has held as under:

“16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 :

(2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that :

(SCC p. 454, para 6)
“6. … 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
8
the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific
instances of their involvement in the crime are
made out.”

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of
the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed
that general allegations are levelled against the
appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused
harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating
her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of the
appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been
attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply leads to a
situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played
by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The
allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can
at best be said to have been made out on account of
small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since
he has not appealed against the order of the High Court,
we have not examined the veracity of allegations made
against him. However, as far as the appellants are
concerned, the allegations made against them being
general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.”

14. The Apex Court has also referred to the earlier decision of the
Apex Court in the cases of Preeti Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Anr. reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667 and in the case of Geeta Malhotra
and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741, and
quashed the FIR which was registered against the petitioners therein. In the case
of prosecution of the relatives/family members of husband, the allegations are
required to be evaluated carefully, and even reading between the line is also
imperative. The instances of ignorable fracas and conflict, usually result in
launching of prosecution of the husband and while launching the prosecution of
the husband, if the relatives are being also implicated, in such an eventualiy, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
9
becomes necessary to evaluate few necessary circumstances like whether the
prosecutrix was actually residing with the family members/relatives who have
been implicated. If the prosecutrix was residing in a common house hold then
what was the exact specific overt act on the part of the each family
member/relative. The prosecutrix is further required to level specific allegations
against each relative if she has been subjected to cruelty by them. Furthermore,
if the relatives/family members are not residing with the prosecutrix, than the
prosecutrix is required to specify as to whether she was subjected to cruelty
indirectly by any other communication like phone or messages etc.

10. The aforesaid all important aspects in the present case are
conspicuously missing. There is no mention of all specific allegations and the
letter given to Prashant Vihar Police Station, New Delhi reveals that respondent
No.4 was residing with petitioner No.4 at New Delhi for last 6 months.
Therefore, so far as petitioner No.1, 2 and 3 are concerned, this Court is of the
considered view that their implication is based on unsustainable allegations
which do not find support with the specific details of their respective acts.
However, so far as petitioner No.4 is concerned, a perusal of FIR though
collectively implicate petitioner No.4 also along with remaining petitioners but
the letter dated 29/12/2020 given by respondent No.4 to the Prashand Vihar
Police Station, New Delhi, also reflects that respondent No.4 had complained
that behavior of her husband was not appropriate/proper towards respondent
No.4.

15. Thus, taking into consideration the FIR, the entire material including
communication dated 29/12/2020, this Court is of the considered view that the
FIR bearing Crime No.0037/2021 dated 13/01/2021 (Annexure P/13) registered
at Police Station Lalbagh, District Burhanpur and also ensued proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM
10
deserves to be and accordingly stand quashed so far they relates to petitioner
Nos.1,2 3. So far as petitioner No.4 is concerned, this petition stands
dismissed.

16. Thus this petition stands partly allowed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 2/13/2024
6:12:05 PM