Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arti Mehta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 November, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21st OF NOVEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14615 of 2023
ARTI MEHTA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms.Smrati Sharma, Advocate for applicants.
Shri Ajay Kumar Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Sankalp Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
=======================================================
ORDER
This application, under section 482 of Cr.P.C, (S.528 of BNSS), has
been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No. 41/2023 lodged at Police
Station Guna Kotwali for offences under sections 498A, 34 of IPC and
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as consequential proceedings.
2. It is the prosecution case that complainant Smt. Sapna Dhaakad
lodged an FIR that on 19/11/2019, she got married to Divyaraj Dhaakad in
accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Divyaraj Dhaakad is posted as a
Revenue Inspector. In the marriage, her father had given ₹31 lakhs in cash,
gold ornaments worth ₹10 lakhs, and other household articles. Her
husband started asking for more dowry and also used to say that he cannot
bear her expenses, therefore, she should bring more money from her
parents. When she replied that her father had already given adequate
dowry and now she can not bring a single penny from her parents, then her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
2 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023
husband and applicants got annoyed. Thereafter, her husband and
applicants used to abuse her and insist that she should reside in her
parental home and they would not allow her to reside in her matrimonial
house. Her husband used to leave her in her matrimonial house at Shivpuri
alone. When she insisted that she would also reside with him at Sheopur,
he used to abuse her filthily and harass her physically and mentally. He
never took her to Sheopur. Applicants regularly demanded dowry and said
that if she does not bring additional dowry, then she should go back to her
parental house. Accordingly, applicants and her husband are continuously
harassing her for demand of dowry.
The complainant has been residing in the house of her parents for the last
6 months. On 8/9/2022, at about 2:00 PM, her husband came to her
parental house at Nayapura, Guna, and informed her that he would not
keep her with him. He also abused the complainant and her family
members and also refused to take her back and went away.
The complainant also made a complaint against her husband and in-laws
at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, but her husband and applicants did not agree
to keep her with them.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that since they are near and
dear relatives of the complainant, therefore, they cannot be made to suffer
the ordeal of trial unless and until the allegations are specific. It is
submitted that husband of complainant was posted in Sheopur, and
therefore, it is clear that complainant was not residing with them.
4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for
the State, as well as, complainant. It is submitted that although the
husband of complainant was posted at Sheopur, but he was not keeping the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
3 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023
complainant with him. He was compelling the complainant to reside in
her matrimonal house along with applicants. During her stay in
matrimonial house, applicants used to abuse her filthily and harass her
physically and mentally. They always insisted that if she does not brings
additional dowry, she should go back to her parental house and, ultimately,
applicants turned her out of the matrimonal house about six months prior
to lodging of FIR. Thus, it is submitted that there are specific allegations
against all the applicants of harassing and treating her with cruelty.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
6. Applicant no.1 is sister-in-law, applicant no.2 is mother-in-law,
applicant no.3 is wife of elder brother-in-law and applicant no.4 is elder
brother-in-law of complainant/Intervener. Although applicants did not
implead the complainant as respondent, but since complainant was
allowed to intervene in the matter, therefore, non impleadment of
complainant as respondent is ignored.
7. It is well established principle of law that in order to prosecute near
and dear relatives of husband, allegations must be specific, clear and
should not be omnibus and general in nature. The Supreme Court in the
cases of Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207,
Monju Roy Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693,
Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1)
UC 155, K. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Telangana reported in
(2018) 14 SCC 452, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in
AIR 2010 SC 3363, Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti reported in
(2009) 10 SCC 184 and Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 741 has held that the near and dear relatives of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
4 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023
deceased should not be compelled to face the ordeal of trial unless and
until there are specific allegations against them.
8. If the allegations made against applicants are considered in the light
of law laid down by Supreme Court, then it is clear that husband of
respodnent was posted at Sheopur as Revenue Inspector, however, he was
not keeping her with him. As a result, she was compelled to reside in her
matrimonial house. Although complainant insisted that she should be
allowed to live with her husband at Sheopur, but husband of complainant
had refused to do so and was insisting that she should bring additional
dowry. Under that circumstance, complainant was compelled to live in
her matrimonial house along with applicants where they were
continuously harassing her physically and mentally. They were
demanding additional dowry and were insisting that unless and until
additional dowry is brought, she should stay back in her parental house.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held as
under:-
“12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of
U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 551, it was observed (SCC
p. 553, paras 8-9):
“8. We have gone through the FIR and the
criminal complaint. In the FIR, the
appellants have not been named and in the
criminal complaint they have been named
without attributing any specific role to
them. The relationship of the appellants
with the husband of the complainant is
distant. In Kans Raj v. State of
Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
5 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023935 : (2000) 3 SCR 662]it was observed
(SCC p. 217, para 5):
“5. … 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 overenthusiasm 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 instant case.”
The Court has, thus, to be careful in
summoning distant relatives without there
being specific material. Only the husband,
his parents or at best close family members
may be expected to demand dowry or to
harass the wife but not distant relations,
unless there is tangible material to support
allegations made against such distant
relations. Mere naming of distant relations
is not enough to summon them in the
absence of any specific role and material to
support such role.
9. The parameters for quashing proceedings
in a criminal complaint are well known. If
there are triable issues, the Court is not
expected to go into the veracity of the rival
versions but where on the face of it, the
criminal proceedings are abuse of Court’s
process, quashing jurisdiction can be
exercised. Reference may be made to K.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
6 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023
Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8
SCC 547 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 27, Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC
749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400, State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC
604 and Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P.,
(2011) 11 SCC 259 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
159.”
13. In the present case, the complaint is as
follows:
“Sir, it is submitted that I was married on 18-
11-2009 with Sidharath Parakh s/o Manak
Chand Parakh r/o Sarafa Bazar in front of
Radha Krishna Market, Gwalior according to
the Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage
my father had given gold and silver
ornaments, cash amount and household
goods according to his capacity. After the
marriage when I went to my matrimonial
home, I was treated nicely by the members of
the family. When on the second occasion I
went to my matrimonial home, my husband,
father-in-law and mother-in-law started
harassing me for not bringing the dowry and
started saying that I should bring from my
father 25-30 tolas of gold and Rs 2,00,000 in
cash and only then they would keep me in
the house otherwise not. On account of this
my husband also used to beat me and my
father-in-law and my mother-in-law used to
torture me by giving the taunts. In this
connection I used to tell my father
Kundanmal Oswal, my mother Smt Prem
Lata Oswal, uncle Ashok Rai Sharma and
uncle Ved Prakash Mishra from time to time.
On 2-4-2010 the members of the family of
my matrimonial home forcibly sent me to theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
7 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023house of my parents in Ganj Basoda along
with my brother Deepak. They snatched my
clothes and ornaments and kept with them.
Since then till today my husband has been
harassing me on the telephone and has not
come to take me back. Being compelled, I
have been moving this application before
you. Sir, it is prayed that action be taken
against husband Sidharath Parakh, my father-
in-law Manak Chand Parakh and my mother-
in-law Smt Indira Parakh for torturing me on
account of demanding dowry.
14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot
be held that even if the allegations are taken
as proved no case is made out. There are
allegations against Respondent 2 and his
parents for harassing the complainant which
forced her to leave the matrimonial home.
Even now she continues to be separated from
the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack
of security and safety and proper environment
in the matrimonial home. The question
whether the appellant has in fact been
harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter
of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that
no case is made out. Thus, quashing of
proceedings before the trial is not
permissible.”
10. Thus, it is clear that passing taunts for bringing less dowry, by itself,
is sufficient to prosecute the mother-in-law of complainant. So far as
sister-in-law, brother-in-law, as well as, wife of brother-in-law is
concerned, the complainant was reisding in her matrimonial house along
with these three applicants and, therefore, whatever allegations have been
made by complainant are specific and direct against them. Applicants
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
8 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023
were treating the complainant with cruelty on account of demand of dowry
and, ultimately, the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house
and is residing in her parental house for last six months from the date of
lodging of FIR.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi v. State of U.P.,
reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 has held as under:-
“14. “Cruelty” which is the crux of the offence
under Section 498-A IPC is defined in Black’s
Law Dictionary to mean “the intentional and
malicious infliction of mental or physical
suffering on a living creature, esp. a human;
abusive treatment; outrage (abuse, inhuman
treatment, indignity)”. Cruelty can be both
physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the
mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part
of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress
and trauma of being driven away from the
matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back
to the same home for fear of being ill-treated are
aspects that cannot be ignored while
understanding the meaning of the expression
“cruelty” appearing in Section 498-A of the Penal
Code. The emotional distress or psychological
effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is
bound to continue to traumatise the wife even
after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes
shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of
physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial
house may have ceased and such acts do not occur
at the parental home, there can be no doubt that
the mental trauma and the psychological distress
caused by the acts of the husband including verbal
exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to
leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with
her parents would continue to persist at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
9 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of
physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal
exchanges would continue in the parental home
even though there may not be any overt act of
physical cruelty at such place.”
12. This Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. Smt. Vimla decided on
22.06.2021 in Criminal Revision No.2376/2020 (Gwalior Bench) has
held that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home
amounts to cruelty.
13. Thus, it is clear that compelling a married woman to live in her
parental house after leaving her matrimonial house would certainly
amount to cruelty for the reason that physical cruelty might have come to
an end, but crurelty includes mental cruelty also.
14. Furthermore, it is well established principle of law that this Court, in
exercise of powers under S.482 of Cr.P.C., can quash the proceedings only
if uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence. The Supreme
Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State
of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 has held as
under:-
“13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the
decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29:
(1943-44) 71 ΙΑ 203: AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles
of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
10 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence
of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court
will not permit an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the “rarest of rare cases”. (The rarest of rare
cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482
CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been
formulated in the context of the death. penalty, as explained
previously by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in
the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a
rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power
of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice
or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process
should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which
must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does notSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
11 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It
casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid
down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,
1960 SCC OnLine SC 21: AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal
[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992
SCC (Cri) 426], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under
Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the
allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the
allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court
has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR.”
The Supreme Court in the cases of XYZ v. State of Gujarat
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin &
Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718, Ajay Kumar Das v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319, Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v.
State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350, State of A.P. v.
Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226, M. Srikanth v.
State of Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373, CBI v. Arvind
Khanna reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686, State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh
by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021, Munshiram v.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM
12 M.Cr.C No.14615/2023
State of Rajasthan, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678, Teeja Devi v. State of
Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC 221, State of Orissa v. Ujjal
Kumar Burdhan, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547, S. Khushboo v.
Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Sangeeta Agrawal v. State
of U.P., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336, Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Padal Venkata Rama
Reddy Vs. Kovuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC
437 and M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC
682 has made the aforesaid legal posititon very clear. Furthermore, this
Court in exercise of powers under S.482 of Cr.P.C. (S.528 of BNSS)
cannot conduct a roving enquiry to hold as to whether the allegations made
in the FIR are correct or not.
15. Considering the totaltiy of facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of considered opinion that there is prima facie material against
applicants warranting prosecution for offences under sections 498A, 34 of
IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
16. Accordingly, application fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 12/3/2024
9:20:02 AM