Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dicky Ram Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
1 MCRC-8370-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 3rd OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8370 of 2023
DICKY RAM TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for applicants.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri B.K. Sharma - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for
quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.1318/2022 registered at Police
Station Kotwali Morena, District Morena (M.P.) for offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and all other consequential proceedings arising
out of it.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that earlier one
M.Cr.C.No.58515/2022 was filed seeking similar relief but it was done
without any authority from the applicants. Accordingly, by separate
order passed today M.Cr.C. No.58515/2022 has been dismissed as it was
filed without any authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
2 MCRC-8370-2023
3. The undisputed facts are that applicant No.1- D.R. Tiwari is
husband, applicant No.2-V.R. Tiwari is elder brother-in-law ( जेठ),
applicant No.3- Smt. Meena Tiwari is mother-in-law, applicant No.4-
Ram Babu Tiwari is father-in-law, applicant No.5- Smt. Sarla Dandotiya
is sister of mother-in-law (मैोसी) and applicant No.6- Banwari Lal
Dandotiya is husband of respondent No.5.
4. Respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR alleging that in the year
2015 she got married to applicant No.1 as per Hindu rites and rituals.
Her father had given cash amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, apart from
household articles as per the list annexed with the FIR. After her
marriage, she used to visit her matrimonial house. After one year of her
marriage, she gave birth to one girl child, namely, Manaya Tiwari.
Thereafter, applicants started expressing their anguish by alleging
that they are not satisfied with the dowry given by her father. They were
insisting that respondent No.2 should bring an additional amount of
Rupees Five Lacs in cash and a Honda car. When she replied that
financial condition of her father is not as such where he can give
additional dowry, then applicants started abusing her filthily and also
treated her with physical and mental cruelty. When she informed
her parents about the cruelty meted out to her, then her parents also tried
to convince and persuade applicants but they did not agree and were
continuously harassing her mentally and physically. Earlier, she had also
made a complaint in Police Station Baakad, District Pune (Maharashtra),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
3 MCRC-8370-2023
however, all the applicants are continuously abusing her filthily in the
name of mother and sister and are insisting that she should bring
additional dowry from her parents otherwise they will not keep her with
them. Accordingly, FIR was lodged.
5. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, it is submitted
by counsel for applicants that it is well established principle of law that
for prosecuting near and dear relatives of husband, allegations must be
specific and clear. Vague and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to
prosecute them. It is submitted that applicants No.5 and 6 have nothing
to do with the family affairs of applicant No.1. It is submitted that
applicant No.1 has instituted a petition for grant of divorce and only
thereafter the FIR has been lodged by way of counterblast. It is also
submitted that applicant No.1 has also lodged a criminal complaint
against respondent No.2 as well as her father and brother for offence
under Sections 384, 389, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
6. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondent No.2. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.2 that so
far as applicants No.5 and 6 are concerned, even their own daughter-in-
law has lodged an FIR against them. By referring to FIR in Crime
No.463/2021 registered at Police Station- Station Road Morena, District
Morena, it is alleged that even real daughter-in-law of applicant No.5
and 6, namely, Neetu Dandotiya has lodged an FIR against applicants
No.5 and 6 as well as her husband, namely, Prashant @
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
4 MCRC-8370-2023
Bholu Dandotiya for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323,
294, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. Furthermore, applicants No.5 and 6 were continuously interfering in
day-today life of respondent No.2 which is evident from the complaint
which has been filed by applicant No.1 and has been relied upon by him
by filing copy of the same as Annexure A-3 along with this application.
By referring to para 15 of the said complaint which has been filed in
Pune it is pointed out by counsel for respondent No.2 that applicant No.5
has been cited as witness. It is submitted that if applicant No.5 is claimed
to have witnessed the incident which took place in Pune then it is clear
that she is regularly visiting the house of husband of respondent No.2
also at Pune. It is submitted that since the real daughter-in-law of
applicants No.5 and 6 has also lodged a report for offence punishable
under Section 498A of IPC therefore it is clear that applicants No.5 and
6 are of greedy nature and do not hesitate in committing atrocities on
daughters-in-law (बहुय) for satisfaction of their greed. So far as lodging
of FIR after institution of divorce petition is concerned, it is submitted
that merely because FIR was lodged after the institution of
divorce petition, it cannot be said that FIR was lodged by way of
counterblast. Only when respondent No.2 realized that things have gone
too far and there is no possibility of reconciliation and her marital life is
on the verge of break-down then if she decides to lodge FIR then at the
most it can be said that respondent No.2 had shown patience and made
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
5 MCRC-8370-2023
every effort to save her marital life. Allegations made against applicants
No.1 to 4 are specific and thus it cannot be said that they are vague or
general or omnibus in nature.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Applicants have relied upon one complaint case instituted by
applicant No.1 in the court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)-Pune which has
been placed on record as Annexure A-3. The said complaint was filed on
28.02.2020. In the said complaint, applicant No.1 has cited applicant
No.5 as witness. As per the complaint lodged, incident took place in
Pune. If applicant No.5 has been cited as a witness to that incident then it
is clear that contention that applicant No.5 is residing separately having
no interference in the life of applicants is prima facie false. If applicant
No.5 claims herself to be an eyewitness of incident which took place in
Pune then it is clear that she has been regularly visiting the house
of applicant No.1 at Pune. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely
because applicant No.5 is the sister of applicant No.3/Mother-in-law
(मौसी सास ) of respondent No.2, therefore, she cannot be presumed to be
interfering in the marital life of respondent No.2. Furthermore, real
daughter-in-law of applicant No.5 and 6, namely, Neetu Dandotiya has
also lodged an FIR against them which has been registered at Crime
No.463/2021 at Police Station- Station Road Morena, District Morena
(M.P.). Similarly, Neetu Dandotiya has also lodged FIR in
Crime No.768/2022 against applicants No.5 and 6 for offence under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
6 MCRC-8370-2023
Sections 323, 294, 506, 34. In FIR No.768/2022 there are specific
allegations that when Neetu Dandotiya went to her matrimonial house
then apart from applicants No.5 and 6, applicant No.3 Smt. Meena
Tiwari who is mother-in-law of respondent No.2 was also present in the
house. Therefore, it is clear that applicants No.3 and 5 who are real
sisters are interfering in the family affairs of each other’s family
and prima facie treating their daughters-in-law with cruelty. The
allegations against applicants are specific and clear. So far as submission
made by counsel for applicants that FIR in question was lodged after
institution of application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is
concerned, the law is very clear in this regard. Supreme Court in the case
o f Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has
held as under:-
“14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived at
by the High Court while quashing the FIR, it is
apparent that the High Court had relied on
extraneous considerations and acted beyond the
allegations made in the FIR for quashing the same
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code. We have already noted the
illustrations enumerated in Bhajan Lal case [1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and from
a careful reading of these illustrations, we are of the
view that the allegations emerging from the FIR are
not covered by any of the illustrations as noted
hereinabove. For example, we may take up one of
the findings of the High Court as noted
hereinabove. The High Court has drawn an adverse
inference on account of the FIR being lodged on 31-
12-2001 while the appellant was forced out of the
matrimonial home on 25-5-2001.
15. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
7 MCRC-8370-2023
the case, the High Court was not justified in
drawing an adverse inference against the appellant
wife for lodging the FIR on 31-12- 2001 on the
ground that she had left the matrimonial home at
least six months before that. This is because, in our
view, the High Court had failed to appreciate that
the appellant and her family members were, during
this period, making all possible efforts to enter into
a settlement so that Respondent 2 husband would
take her back to the matrimonial home. If any
complaint was made during this period, there was
every possibility of not entering into any settlement
with Respondent 2 husband.
16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was
filed only when all efforts to return to
the matrimonial home had failed and Respondent 2
husband had filed a divorce petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in
our view, filing of a divorce petition in a civil court
cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled
that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and
independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding
cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even
if they arise out of the same set of facts. Such being
the position, we are, therefore, of the view that the
High Court while exercising its powers under
Section 482 of the Code has gone beyond the
allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess
of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court
was not justified in quashing the FIR by going
beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by
relying on extraneous considerations.
22. For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined to
interfere with the order of the High Court and hold
that the High Court in quashing the FIR in the
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code by relying on the investigation report and
the findings made therein has acted beyond its
jurisdiction. For the purpose of finding out the
commission of a cognizable offence, the High
Court was only required to look into the allegations
made in the complaint or the FIR and to conclude
whether a prima facie offence had been made out
by the complainant in the FIR or the complaint or
not.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
8 MCRC-8370-2023
9. Thus, it is clear that the findings recorded by criminal court are
not binding on civil court and vice versa. Both the cases are to be
decided on their own merits. If wife maintains patience and silence with
solitary intention to save her matrimonial life, then it cannot be said that
it was her weakness. On the contrary, it shows her sincerity towards her
marital life. If after realizing that her in-laws have gone to such an
extent where reconciliation is not possible and then daughter-in-law
decides to lodge an FIR complaining about cruelty meted out to her,
then it cannot be said that said FIR is a counterblast to the petition for
divorce. Furthermore, from filing of complaint by applicant No.1 in the
court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)-Pune which has been registered as
Criminal M.A. No.245/2020, it is clear that relationship of applicant
No.1 and respondent No.2 is not cordial. Even applicants are out and out
to criminally prosecute respondent No.2 and her family members. Under
these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view
of allegations made in the FIR and in the light of judgments passed by
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703
9 MCRC-8370-2023
(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. 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, this Court can quash the proceedings only if the
uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence. 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.
10. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that
allegations made in FIR are sufficient to prosecute the applicants.
11. Ex consequenti, application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 12/10/2024
5:31:26 AM