SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tarun vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2018

M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017 1

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017

Tarun Ors.
vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh Anr.

————————
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Vishal Sannotia, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1 / State.
None for the respondent No.2, though served.
——————-
ORDER

(16/05/2018)
This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘The Code’), has been preferred for
quashment of First Information Report in crime No.116/2017, Police
Station- Kotwalli, District Dhar, registered against the applicants for
offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as also the charge-sheet
and consequential proceedings.

02. The relevant facts in nutshell, for the disposal of the case,
are that marriage of the applicant No.1-Tarun was solemnized with
respondent No.2/complainant-Ritu on 12/05/2013 as per Hindu rituals
and customs. Applicants No.2 3 are the mother-in-law and father-in-
law of respondent No.2/complainant-Ritu. After marriage, respondent
No.2 started living with her husband at Dhar. On 03/03/2017,
respondent No.2 made a written complaint against the applicants
alleging that her father has spent Rs.5.00 lakhs in the marriage. For six
months she was kept happily in her matrimonial house and thereafter
applicants started demanding Rs.5.00 lakhs from her as dowry. When
M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017 2

the aforesaid demand was not fulfilled, the complainant was harrassed
mentally and physically by the applicants. Thereafter, she went to her
parental house and since last two years, she has been living with her
parents. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an F.I.R bearing crime
No.116/2017 at Police Station Kotwalli, District Dhar, was registered
against the applicants for offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.

03. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that after
the marriage, the respondent No.2/complainant resided with the
applicants till 16/12/2014. It is further submitted that the complainant
does not want to live in Dhar and she wanted to live in a bigger city
like Indore or Bhopal. Applicant No.1 is running a dental clinic at Dhar
and he has also the responsibility of his parents, therefore, he refused to
shift his base to bigger city. When the aforesaid demand was not
fulfilled by applicant No.1, then she started harassing the applicants by
making false allegations against them. After leaving the house of the
applicants, respondent No.2/complainant made a complaint against
applicants at Mahila Thana, Bhopal. However, after due conciliation
the complaint so filed by the respondent No.2 was settled by both the
parties, by executing a written agreement on 01/11/2016, in which it
was categorically stated that both the parties shall file a joint petition
before the competent Court to seek divorce by way of mutual consent.
Later on applicant No.1 filed a suit of divorce against the respondent
No.2/complainant under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar. The Family Court
issued notice to the respondent No.2, which was served on her on
05/12/2016 and after that as a counter blast she has lodged a false
report against the applicants regarding demand of dowry and
M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017 3

harassment. After service of notice, the respondent No.2 did not appear
before the family Court, hence an ex parte decree of divorce was
passed on 20/03/2017 in favour of applicant No.1.

04. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that the
alleged F.I.R has been lodged against the applicants after an in-ordinate
delay and for the same, respondent No.2/complainant has come up with
a fragile excuses. Only omnibus allegations have been made against
the applicants in the complaint and the investigating agency has not
recorded the statement of any independent witnesses. It is contended
that the prosecution has been launched against the applicants with
malafide intention and it is a misuse of criminal justice system.
Therefore, it is a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

05. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported
the prosecution on the ground that prima-facie allegations leveled
against the applicants are made out, therefore, this application
deserves to be dismissed.

06. I have considered rival contentions raised on behalf of the
parties and perused the documents placed on record along with the
present application.

07. The parameters on which the indulgence can be shown for
exercising powers available under Section 482 of ‘the Code’ with
respect to matrimonial matters have been laid down by the Apex Court
in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 in
the following manner :

“20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents
of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no
allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have
been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the
names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in the matter would
not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the
M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017 4

fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to
involve the entire family members 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 in the matter of G.V.
Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held
that the High 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: (SCC P.698, para

12)
“12. there has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in 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 helpless
on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many reasons which need not be
mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults and terminate the 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.”

The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes.”

08. In another judicial pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd.,
(2016) 6 SCC 310, wherein the Hon’ble Court referred to the earlier
decision, observed in the following manner :-

“In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, this
Court observed as follows:-

“7. The legal position is well settled that when a
M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017 5

prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed,
the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie
establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into
consideration any special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in
the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be
utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the
opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction
are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to
be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, the court may while taking into consideration
the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding
even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

09. In the context of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
the plain reading of the FIR dated 03/03/2017 filed by the respondent
No.2 shows that the allegations relating to commission of offence
punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 are vague and bereft of details as to the place
and time of the incident, it also does not refer to any specific act of the
applicants. According to the contents of F.I.R, the respondent No.2
was subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.5.00
lakhs as dowry by the applicants, however, it is undisputed that the
respondent No.2 is living separately since year 2015 and hence there is
no question of any harassment by the applicants as alleged by her as
the relationship having got a strained, ever since December 2014. It
is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has also filed complaint
against applicant no.1 in Mahila Thana, Bhopal and after conciliation,
she agreed to seek divorce from applicant No.1, therefore, it is difficult
to believe that there is still a demand of dowry on 03/03/2017 coupled
with the criminal intimidation.

10. The applicant No.1 filed a suit of divorce against
respondent No.2/complainant in Family Court, Dhar in which an ex-
parte divorce decree has been passed vide order dated 21/03/2017.

M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017 6

After receiving the notice of the aforesaid suit respondent No.2 has
filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against applicant No.1 on 03/03/2017
and on the same day, she also lodged F.I.R for offence punishable
under Section 498A, 506 of IPC and Section 3 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, against the applicant at police station Kotwali,
District Dhar, which clearly indicates that as a counter blast of divorce
petition filed by the applicant No.1 against respondent No.2, she has
lodged the aforesaid F.I.R against the applicants.

11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be
evident that veiled object behind the lame prosecution is apparently to
harass the appellants, therefore, to secure the ends of justice and for
preventing abuse of the process of criminal Court, it is a fit case in
which the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of ‘the
Code’ may be exercised.

12. Consequently, the application filed by the applicants, under
Section 482 of ‘the Code’ is hereby allowed and the First Information
Report bearing crime No.116/2017, registered at Police Station-
Kotwali, Dhar, against the applicants for offences under Section 498-A,
506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 as also the charge-sheet and all the
consequential proceedings flowing out of the said F.I.R stands quashed.

Certified copy as per Rules.

(S. K. AWASTHI)
JUDGE
sumathi

Digitally signed by Sumati
Jagadeesan
Date: 2018.05.16 18:05:35 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
Γ—

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh