1 MCRC-15937-2016
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-15937-2016
(SMT. SEEMA SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
10
Jabalpur, Dated : 28-08-2018
Mr.Pramesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms.Shahin Fatima, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Ms.Premlalta Lokhande, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. It is claimed by the petitioners that they are sister-in-laws
(‘nand’) of the respondent No.2. Without proper investigation the Police
of Police Station, Kymore, Katni has registered the offence under section
498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against them. They were living at different places and not
with the respondent No.2. It is further claimed that they had only attended
the marriage of their brother with the respondent No.2. They also do not
have regular touch with the respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioner No.1
is residing at Sagar and petitioner No.2 is residing at Jabalpur. Only the
petitioner No.3 is residing at Katni. There is no specific allegation
against them. The respondent No.2 by filing the proceedings against them
has misused the process of law. It is also submitted that after filing of
divorce petition by the applicants’ brother against her, First Information
Report has been registered against them in connection with Crime
No.131/2016. Therefore, entire charge-sheet and the consequent
Criminal Case No.480/2016 are liable to be quashed.
3. Learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for
the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that she
was thrown out by the applicants alongwith Dewashish Shrivastava
(husband of the respondent No.2) for non-fulfilment of dowry demand of
Rs.2 lacs case and motor-cycle. On 02.5.2015 when she came to her
matrimonial house, the petitioners and her husband assaulted her.
Petitioner No.2 and Dewashish took her to the hospital for treatment.
Then they left her alone at the hospital. Therefore, offence has been
registered against the petitioners and other co-accused persons.
4. As per the written complaint filed by the respondent No.2
after her marriage, when she reached her matrimonial home, all the
Digitally signed by RAJESH T
MAMTANI
Date: 30/08/2018 19:39:28
2 MCRC-15937-2016
petitioners demanded dowry and harassed her. She narrated the entire
incident to her parents on 24.9.2015. Then she again went to her
matrimonial house on 02.5.2015. Then her husband and sisters
(petitioners) assaulted her. First Information Report has been registered
on 24.7.2016. Written report has been filed on the same day, which is
apparently belated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed
divorce petition on 13.6.2016 before the Family Court. Notice of the said
petition was served to the respondent No.2 on 03.7.2016. Hence, after
that respondent No.2 filed written complaint to the Police Station on
false grounds.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has not explained
as to why the respondent No.2 had filed the complaint under section 498-
A of I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act after filing of the
divorce petition against her.
7. In the case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram
Gopal Poddar and another, (2010) 10 SCC 673 the Apex Court has
observed as under:-
“We reiterate that when the Criminal Court looks into the complaint, it has
to do so with an open mind. True it is that, that is not the stage for finding out the
truth or otherwise in the allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so
absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court could not
have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the
matter. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice. The High Court is
invited with the tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interests
of justice. Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the High Court to
look into the allegations with the openness and then to decide whether to pass
any order in the interest of justice. In our opinion, this was a case where the High
Court ought to have used its powers under section 482, Cr.P.C.”
8. In the case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of
Jharkhand and another, (2010) 9 SCC 667 it has been observed that
allegations of harassment of husband’s close relatives who had live
separately and rarely visited the place of matrimonial house of
complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection. Their Lordships’ also remind the social responsibility
and obligation of the learned member of Bar to ensure that the social
fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished because majority of the
complaints are filed either on the advice or with concurrence.
9. In view of preceding analysis and in the light of law laid
down in aforesaid decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of
Digitally signed by RAJESH T
MAMTANI
Date: 30/08/2018 19:39:28
3 MCRC-15937-2016
the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the
petitioners, who are near relatives of the respondent No.2 inasmuch as
continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse
of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The
proceeding of Criminal Case No.480/2016 against the present petitioners
are hereby quashed.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE
RM
Digitally signed by RAJESH T
MAMTANI
Date: 30/08/2018 19:39:28
