Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 November, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
1
MCRC No.19771-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T IN D OR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 13th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19771 of 2024
AMAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhijeet Dube - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava - G.A./P.L. for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Madhur Tiwari - Advocate for respondent
No.2/complainant.
ORDER
1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.163 of
2021 on 04.03.2021, at Police Station – Chandan Nagar, Indore
under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 376, 323, 294, 506, 34 & 498A of
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and
the subsequent proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime
number.
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was
lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 alleging that she was
harassed by the petitioners, who committed the aforesaid offences
against her as she was married to petitioner No.1 Aman Tiwari on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
2
MCRC No.19771-2024
26.02.2020. The FIR has been lodged almost after one year of the
marriage. As per the FIR, the petitioner No.1 Aman Tiwari and
respondent No.2 solemnized a love marriage on 30.01.2020, as
both of them were working as teachers in Engineering College at
Rau, District – Indore. It is alleged that the complainant’s side
spent more than Rs.10 lakh in the marriage, however, soon after
the marriage, the family members of the petitioner No.1 started
harassing the respondent No.2 wife for not bringing the adequate
dowry. They also started saying that if they had married their son
to some other place, they would have got huge dowry and a car. It
is also alleged that the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2
forcibly took the ornaments from the complainant and kept with
her. It is also alleged that the complainant was subjected to
unnatural intercourse and her husband’s brother also started
outraging her modesty, and used to abuse and beat her also. It is
also alleged that one night when she was sleeping with her
husband, her husband called his brother petitioner No.4 Arjit to
sleep between them, who also kept his hand on her, and at that
time her husband also demanded unnatural sex from her in front
of her brother-in-law, and she was also assaulted on the said night
and when she informed her mother-in-law about the same, she
also stated that it must be her own fault. It is also alleged in the
FIR that her husband also tore her clothes and took a video of her
and also used to force her to watch porn videos. It is also alleged
that her husband had also taken her video of their first night and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
3
MCRC No.19771-2024
was threatening her that he would viral the same. It is also alleged
that her husband was in contact with one Narendra Bariya and
Sanjay Soni, whereas he used to treat Narendra Bariya as his
Guru, and he also told her that these people will also have a right
on her body and on one such day, both these persons were also
tried to outrage her modesty, however, she ran away, but she was
threatened not to report the incident to any person, however, she
got an FIR registered against the said persons, but after they were
released on bail, they have again started harassing her, and his
husband also told her that he has already sold her to Sanjay for a
sum of Rs.2 lakh, and that she should start residing in their
Aashram as Daasee. Thus, it is alleged that when the atrocities
committed by the accused persons became unbearable, she has
lodged the report. She has also stated that all the videos are also
lying with accused Aman Tiwari.
4] Shri Abhijeet Dube, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that a total false case has been lodged against the
petitioners, who belong to a well educated family. It is submitted
that even according to the respondent No.2/complainant, she and
the petitioner No.1 Aman were teaching in an Engineering
College. It is submitted that in the entire charge-sheet no such
video clips or photographs have been seized by the police, which,
according to the complainant, were taken by the petitioner No.1.
5] Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a
Civil Engineer and has completed his B.E.(Civil) from IGUIT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
4
MCRC No.19771-2024
(RGPV), Bhopal and M.Tech (Construction Technology and
Management) from Samrat Ashok Technological Institute,
Vidisha, whereas his brother petitioner No.4 Arjit is also a
Engineer and has completed his education from Technician
Membership Examination (TIIE) (Equivalent to three years State
Board of Technical Education (Govt. of India) Polytechnic
Engineering) from Indian Institute of Engineering and Associate
Membership Examination (AMIIE) (Equivalent to B.Tech/B.E.
Engineering) from Indian Institute of Engineers, Delhi, the
documents regarding which have also been filed on record. It is
also submitted that presently petitioner No.1 is working as a site
Engineer in Surat Metro Rail Project, Gujarat. Copy of which is
also filed on record, whereas petitioner No.4 is a senior site
Engineer Expert in Mumbai Ahmadabad High Speed Rail, Project
in Surat, Gujarat.
6] It is also submitted that a civil suit was also filed by the
petitioner No.1 on 09.01.2021, against the respondent
No.2/complainant and one Ishwar Joshi for declaration and
permanent injunction regarding the dispute between them, which
is still pending in the Civil Court at Indore. It is also submitted
that the petitioner No.1 has already filed a divorce petition
against the respondent No.2/complainant on 16.02.2021, and only
as a counterblast to the aforesaid civil cases, a false case has been
registered on 04.03.2021, which is the present FIR.
7] Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
5
MCRC No.19771-2024
admittedly, it was a love marriage and was solemnized in Arya
Samaj temple, and hence, there was no question of demand of
any dowry etc. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR and the
subsequent proceedings be quashed as apart from omnibus
allegations, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioners
with the offence.
8] The prayer is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the
respondent No.2 and it is submitted that the petitioners have
inflicted extreme atrocities on the complainant/respondent No.2,
which led her to lodge the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner
No.1 also used to take his wife complainant to other persons to
satisfy their lust, and whereas, the petitioner No.4 also used to
outrage the modesty of the respondent No.2/complainant.
Counsel for the complainant has also submitted that the
respondent No.2 has already been examined in the trial Court. In
such circumstances, no case for interference is made out. Copy of
her deposition is also filed on record.
9] Counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer.
10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11] From the record, it is apparent that the marriage of
petitioner No.1 was solemnized with the complainant through
Arya Samaj on 26.02.2020, whereas the FIR has been lodged on
04.03.2021, and it is alleged that during all this period, the
complainant was treated with cruelty as aforesaid.
12] From the M.L.C. dated 04.03.2021, it is found that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
6
MCRC No.19771-2024
complainant, as per the history given to the doctor, has stated that
her husband has left her around four months ago. Apparently, in
the M.L.C., the doctor has not given any opinion about the rape
as claimed by the respondent No.2/complainant. Thus, apparently,
there was delay of at least four months in lodging the FIR. This
court finds that apart from the verbal allegations, there is nothing
on record to connect the petitioners with the offence. It is also
found that the complainant herself is well educated, whereas, the
petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are also qualified Engineers, the
documents regarding which, have already been filed on record,
which have not been rebutted by the respondent No.2, whereas
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of
the respondent No.2.
13] It is also found that a civil suit has also been filed by the
petitioner No.1 on 09.01.2021, against the respondent
No.2/complainant and one Ishwar Joshi for declaration and
permanent injunction regarding the dispute between them.
Whereas a matrimonial dispute exists between the parties as the
petitioner No.1 has already filed a divorce petition against the
respondent No.2/complainant on 16.02.2021, whereas the present
FIR has been lodged by the complainant on 04.03.2021, which
appears to be an act of wreaking vengeance on the
accused/petitioners, only as a counterblast to the civil cases.
14] In this regard, reference may also be had to the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Vs. State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
7
MCRC No.19771-2024
of Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015
dated 31.08.2023 reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, relevant
para of the same reads as under:-
“13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a
petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them
by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a
rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this
score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular
relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v.
State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to
deal with a similar situation where the High Court had
refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences,
including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue
that required determination was whether allegations made
against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which
would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier
decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of
Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court
observed that false implications by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On
the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations
were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held
that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear
allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the
process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading
to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the
accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
15] At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the decision
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State
of Haryana and another reported as 2024 SCC online SC 759,
the relevant paras of the same (relevant excerpts only) read as
under:-
22. Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is filed, the
FIR pales into insignificance. The court, thereafter, owes a duty
to look into all the materials collected by the investigatingSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
8MCRC No.19771-2024
agency in the form of chargesheet. There is nothing in the
words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise
of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of
court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It
would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings
initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of
FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet.
23. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC
866, this Court summarised some categories of cases where
inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the
proceedings:-
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety
do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
xxxxxxxx
25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general
and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any
specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse
of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the
allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to
find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the
allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object
of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more
particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute.
xxxxxxxx
30. In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7
as indicated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
The category 7 as laid reads thus:-
“(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide 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.”
31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
9
MCRC No.19771-2024
should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like
the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the
fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband
and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if
the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial
justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of
the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter.
xxxxx
35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in
Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal
principle applicable apropos Section 482 of the CrPC was
examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused
comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent
power under Section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the
criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then
in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into
the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further
observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute
the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many
other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the
case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due
care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
36. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the
conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to
continue against the Appellant, the same will be nothing short
of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. This is a fit
case wherein, the High Court should have exercised its inherent
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of
quashing the criminal proceedings.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
16] It is also found that the examination-in-chief of respondent
No.2 has taken place in the trial Court on 06.09.2024 and she has
not yet been cross-examined. Be that as it may, this Court is of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:32493
10
MCRC No.19771-2024
the considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is satisfied that petitioner no.1 and his family
members have been falsely implicated in the criminal case due to
matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and his wife, the
respondent no.2 herein, and the continuation of trial against them
would only amount to misuse of the process of the Court.
17] Accordingly, the petition stands allowed, and the FIR
lodged at Crime No.163 of 2021 on 04.03.2021 at Police Station –
Chandan Nagar, Indore under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 376, 323, 294,
506, 34 & 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of The Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 and the consequential proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid crime number are hereby quashed.
18] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed
of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 06-12-2024
16:26:10