Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganpat Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI ON THE 14th OF NOVEMBER, 2024 M.CR.C. NO. 44242 of 2023 GANPAT MEENA AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Appearance: Shri Abhinav Dubey - Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri S.K. Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.2. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ORDER
This petition is under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of
order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Nasurullaganj, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.22/2023 whereby the
revisional Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court on
10.03.2023 passed in Regular Criminal Trial No.59/2021, framing
charges against the present petitioners under Sections 498-A, 506, 504,
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
has dismissed the revision.
2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the Courts
have not considered the material aspect of the matter that though an
offence under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act got registered
2 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
against the petitioners, but failed to appreciate that it was based upon
false and incorrect facts with an intention to create pressure upon
petitioner No.4 restraining him to proceed further in a case of divorce
filed against respondent No.2. He has submitted that if facts are
considered in proper perspective then it would be clear that there was no
valid reason to register an FIR under Section 498-A but both the Courts
ignoring the said material aspect of the matter have passed the orders in
a very mechanical manner.
3. To decide the controversy as has been raised by the petitioners
before this Court, the brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:-
(3.1) The petitioner No.4 entered into marriage with the
complainant/respondent No.2 on 22.04.2016 as per the Hindu rites at
Sehore. As per prosecution, after some time, the relations of the
complainant with her husband and also his family members became
unpleasant and they used to harass her for demand of dowry. It is
alleged that petitioners were demanding a car costing about Rs.16 lacs
and 10 tola of gold bracelet but when the said demand could not be
fulfilled, the complainant was physically and mentally harassed by the
petitioners and left with no option, she left the house of her husband and
started living with her parents.
(3.2) As per the allegation made in the complaint, in the year 2019, at
the time of Rakshabandhan, the present petitioners had assaulted the
complainant/respondent No.2 and therefore, she left the house of her
husband and started living with her parents. Thereafter, to reconcile the
matter, though the petitioners tried to convince the complainant and also
her family members, but they refused to settle the matter. It is further
alleged that on 22.10.2020, the petitioners along with their relatives
went to the house of parents of the complainant where she was residing
3 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023and compelled them to fulfill their demand but it was refused by the
parents of the complainant/respondent No.2 because father of the
complainant was not financially very sound. It was also declared by the
petitioners that if their demand is not fulfilled then they would get their
son remarried and after abusing the family members of the complainant,
returned and thereafter a complaint was made by the
complainant/respondent No.2 to the police.
(3.3) On 24.11.2020, the FIR got registered and charges were also
framed. A revision was preferred by the present petitioners against the
order of framing of charges but that was also dismissed by the revisional
Court.
4. As per counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are financially
sound and they do not need any dowry from the complainant and
according to him, all the allegations about demand of dowry made by
the complainant are false and incorrect. According to him, when the
complainant came back to her in-laws in the year 2019 and did not make
make any complaint to the police about the alleged demand of dowry,
then it is clear that creating a false and concocted story, the report was
made to the police that too in the month of November, 2020.
5. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR was lodged by
the respondent No.2 only because on 07.10.2020, she received the
notice of the divorce case that was filed by the petitioner No.4 in the
month of February, 2020. Thereafter, a complaint was made to the
police on 24.11.2020 and the FIR got registered. He has further
submitted that registration of FIR without there being any sufficient
explanation, belatedly made by the complainant/respondent No.2 that
too after knowing about the fact that divorce case has been filed by the
petitioner No.4 (husband) and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
4 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a
decision of the Supreme Court passed in case of Abhishek Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in AIRONLINE 2023 SC 674. He has
further placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in case of
Abhishek Pandey alias Ramji Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in AIRONLINE 2021 MP 1742.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
submission made by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that at the
time of framing of charges, the Court has to see whether the
corroboratory material available with the Court is prima facie
constituting the offence registered against the accused and if situation is
so, interference by the Court is impermissible and the Court has to frame
charges accordingly. It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that
the respondent No.2/complainant left the house of the present petitioners
because a demand of dowry was made by them and the complainant
waited for some time apprehending that there is a possibility of
reconciliation but when nothing was done, she was left with no other
option but to inform the police. According to him, though there was
some delay in lodging the FIR but it cannot be made a ground for
quashing the order of framing of charges.
7. I have heard the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties
and also perused the record.
8. As per the available material, indisputably the
complainant/respondent No.2 left the house of of the petitioner No.4 in
the year 2019 and thereafter she did not make any complaint to the
police. There is no material available on record to indicate that at any
point of time, the complainant had made complaint to any of the
authorities or in the Society about the conduct of the petitioners or ever
5 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
raised grievance that they were harassing her because of non-fulfilling
their demand of dowry. On 12.12.2020, FIR got registered against the
complainant (respondent No.2) and her family members on a report
made by the husband (petitioner No.2 herein) and as per the said report,
the complainant and her family members entered into the house of the
petitioners and started abusing, physically assaulting them and as such,
offence under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code got registered against them. A copy of notice of divorce case is
also available on record indicating that the same got issued by the Court
on 07.10.2020 and after receiving this notice, the
complainant/respondent No.2 (wife) lodged the FIR on 24.11.2020.
9. There is nothing available on record indicating any sufficient
explanation for not lodging the report about the conduct of the petitioner
No.4 and his family members instantly after the respondent No.2 (wife)
left the house of her husband and started living with her parents. It can
also be considered that the respondent No.2 (wife) had lodged the report
just to create pressure upon the petitioner No.4 (husband) and his family
members because he has filed a divorce case against the respondent
No.2 (wife). In absence of any corroborating material and evidence
collected by the prosecution that at the time when she was living with
the husband (petitioner No.4 herein) in her in-laws’ house, any such
report in respect of demand of dowry was ever made by the respondent
No.2 to the police, it can be presumed that she made a complaint to the
police only after coming to know that a divorce case has been filed
against her.
10. The Supreme Court in case of Abhishek (supra) has observed as
under:-
6 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
“19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of presently is that
Bhawna admittedly parted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-
laws in 15 February, 2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not
choose to make a complaint against them in relation to dowry
harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated
09.02.2013 records that the occurrence of the offence was from
02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna
against the appellants after she left her matrimonial home in February,
2009. Significantly, Bhawna got married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at
Indore and went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction
with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only during festivals and
is stated to be about 3 or 4 times. Sourabh, an architect, was stationed at
Delhi since the year 2007 and no specific allegation was ever made
against him by Bhawna. In fact, she merely made a general allegation to
the effect that he also tortured her mentally and physically for dowry.
No specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as to how he
subjected her to such harassment from Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek
became a judicial officer 6 or 7 months after her marriage and seems to
have had no occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish at Mumbai. His
exposure to her was only when she came to visit her in-laws during
festivals. Surprisingly, Bhawna alleges that at the time of his own
marriage, Abhishek demanded that Bhawna and her parents should
provide him with a car and Rs..2 lakhs in cash. Why he would make
such a demand for dowry, even if he was inclined to commit such an
illegality, from his sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is rather
incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Further, the fact that Bhawna
confessed to making a vicious complaint against Abhishek to the High
Court clearly shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her
brother-in-law, Abhishek, is concerned, and she clearly wanted to wreak
vengeance against her in-laws. The allegation levelled by Bhawna
against her mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, with regard to how she taunted
her when she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in
terms of Section 498A IPC.
20. We may also note that Bhawna herself claimed that Nimish came to
her brother’s wedding in 2012, but she has no details to offer with
regard to any harassment for dowry being meted out to her by her
mother-in-law and her brothers-in-law after 2009. As noted earlier, even
for that period also, her allegations are mostly general and omnibus in
nature, without any specific details as to how and when her brothers-in-
law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether,
subjected her to harassment for dowry.
21. Most damaging to Bhawna’s case is the fact that she did nothing
whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February, 2009, and
filed a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just
before her husband instituted divorce proceedings.
22. Given the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the
7 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
considered opinion that Bhawna’s allegations against the appellants,
such as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make
out a case against them. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable
that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to
proceed against them. In effect, the case on hand falls squarely in
categories (1) and (5) set out in Bhajan Lal (supra). Permitting the
criminal process to go on against the appellants in such a situation
would, therefore, result in clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case
for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings.”
11. In similar circumstances, this Court in case of Abhishek Pandey
alias Ramji Pandey (supra) has quashed the charges framed against the
accused under Section 498-A of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act because the wife lodged the report only after
filing a case of divorce against her. Paras 12 to 16 of the said judgment
are relevant which read as under:-
“12. A charge-sheet has been filed by the applicants and from the
statement of the complainant/ non-applicant no.2, it reflects that at the
time of complaint, she had knowledge about filing of the matrimonial
case seeking decree of divorce. It is also clear from the statement that the
non-applicant no.2 after coming to know that applicant no.1 was going to
get married with a lady namely Bhuvneshwari then only she lodged the
report to the police and made several allegations of dowry and also of
offences relating to the Atrocities Act.
13. The High Court in number of cases has observed that in a case where
complaint is made by the wife against the husband and his family
members only after filing a petition for divorce then the same is
considered to be a counter-blast, just to create pressure upon the husband
so that he may withdraw the case relating to decree of divorce. It is also
observed by the High Court that if the fact indicates that the wife has not
raised any voice alleging demand of dowry for long and has also not
approached any authority regarding her grievances, but only after filing a
suit by the husband complaint is made by the wife then the said complaint
is considered to be a counter-blast and prosecution is considered to be an
act apparently to harass the husband and his family members and such a
complaint/FIR has been quashed.
14. In M.Cr.C. No. 8104/2017 (Tarun and Others Vs. State of M.P. and
another), the High Court, considering the similar aspect has passed an
order quashing the FIR whereby offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
were registered. The High Court relying upon several decisions has
8 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
observed as under:-
“7. 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 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.”
9 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
8. 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 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.”
9. 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 exparte divorce
decree has been passed vide order dated 21/03/2017. 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
10 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
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 chargesheet and all the
consequential proceedings flowing out of the said F.I.R stands
quashed.”
15. Further, in case of Rohit Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2019 (III)
MPWN 25, considering the similar facts as has been involved in the
present case, the High Court has observed as under:-
“9. The first contention which appears to be preliminary in
nature is that the documents which are brought on record
regarding the complaint made by the applicant No. 1 to the
Superintdent of Police, Ratlam and filing of application under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal
rights are the defence documents and there is prohibition in
considering such documents in order to decide the application of
the instant nature. This contention can be best answered by
relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, (2008) 14 SCC 1, has
held as under:
“21. We should also keep in mind that it is well settled that
a judgment of the Court has not to be treated as Euclid’s
formula [vide Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi
Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S)
887 : JT (2008) 8 SC 621] ]. As observed by this Court in
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani (2004) 8
SCC 579 : AIR 2004 SC 4778, observations of courts are
neither to be read as Euclid’s formula nor as provisions of
the statute.
22. Thus, in our opinion, while it is true that ordinarily
defence material cannot be looked into by the court while
framing of the charge in view of D.N. Padhi case [(2005) 1
SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] , there may be some very
11 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023rare and exceptional cases where some defence material
when shown to the trial court would convincingly
demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or
preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defence
material can be looked into by the court at the time of
framing of the charges or taking cognizance. In our
opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as an absolute
proposition that under no circumstances can the court look
into the material produced by the defence at the time of
framing of the charges, though this should be done in very
rare cases i.e. where the defence produces some material
which convincingly demonstrates that the whole
prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted.
38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused
to produce any evidence in support of the submissions
made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and
only such materials as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC
can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at
that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under
Section 482 CrPC the court is free to consider material that
may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a
decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained.
This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the
legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in
which they have been worded and as explained in
Debendra Nath Padhi case (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 415 by the larger Bench therein to which the very
same question had been referred.”
10. The reproduced extracts of the said judgment clearly
demonstrate that there is no prohibition in considering even the
defence material while exercising the power under Section 482
of CrPC. Consequently, the first contention of the respondent
about nonconsideration of the defence material is repealed.
11. The next contention which touches on the merits of the case
is that the Court cannot consider the background or the
circumstances under which the complaint has been lodged as it is
only required to pursue the contents of the complaint lodged by
the respondent No.2 and the statements recorded by the police
under Section 161 of CrPC and if these materials make out the
ingredient of offence charged against the applicants, there is no
scope for showing any indulgence. In this context of said
contention, it will be worthwhile to quote the following
observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh
Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310:-
“15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
12 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988
SCC (Cri) 234] , this Court observed as follows: (SCC p.
695, para 7)
“7. The legal position is well settled that when a
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.”
12. The consideration of the reproduced portion clearly indicates
that it is open to the Court to enquire into the circumstances and
the context in which the complaint has been lodged because it is
not expedient in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution
to continue when the same has been filed with oblique motive or
to settle the personal score.
13. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that there is no
specific averments regarding the date or the occasion or any
specific wording that they made for demanding dowry. The
marriage was taken place only one and half year before the
complaint. Earlier no complaint was made to any authority
regarding demand of dowry and harasment. According to the
allegation made in the complaint that on 29.08.2017 in presence
of the father and maternal uncle of the respondent No.2, the
applicants made demand of dowry and thrown out her from the
matrimonial house but complainant did not lodged any compliant
immediately after the said incident to the police. The present
complaint has been made after near about 3 months of the last
incident and no explanation has been disclosed about the delay in
lodging the FIR. These circumstance prima facie raised doubt
about the probability of truthfullness of the allegations made by
the respondent No.2 against the applicants.
14. From the documents filed by the applicants, it reveals that
applicant No. 1 has given notice to the respondent No.2 on
20.11.2017 regarding restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter
the respondent No.2 lodged FIR against the applicants at Police
13 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
StationMahila Thana on 26.11.2017, which indicates that the
respondent No.2 lodged the FIR against the applicants for
demand of dowry and harassment to defeat the proceedings
initiated by the applicant No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights.
15. From the reasons stated hereinabove, this court is of the view that
there are no sufficient material on record to form an opinion that there is
ground for presuming that the appellants/accused persons have
committed the offence under the charged sections. The learned Judicial
Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge missed these crucial points
while framing the charge and considering the revision application filed
by the applicants under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. the veiled object behind
the lame prosecution is apparently to harass the applicants, therefore, the
impugned prosecution is wholly unfounded.
16. Therefore, present petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are hereby
allowed and the proceedings drawn against the applicants in furtherance
to the FIR bearing crime No.18/2017 for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 498-A, 323/34 of I.P.C. registered at police
Station-Mahila Thana, Ratlam and the consequential proceedings
pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Class, Ratlam in
criminal case No.2215/2017 are hereby quashed.”
16. Further, in case of Sanjay Sthapak & 4 others Vs. State of M.P.
and another passed in M.Cr.C. No. 10044/2010, the High Court has
also dealt with a situation as is involved in the present case and also
analysed the misuse of provisions of Section 498-A of IPC and also
discussed the factual aspect that the complaint is made by the wife
only after filing of suit by the husband for seeking decree of divorce
and there is no corroborative material available then it is considered
that the action by the wife is nothing but a counter-blast and as such,
allegations made in the FIR are found absurd and improbable and
also quashed the FIR. The High Court in the said case has observed
as under:-
“5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of record it is found that in the FIR
there is no specific allegation with regard to the demand of the
dowry and harassment and only omnibus statement have been
made against all accused persons and when the matter was
placed before the District Level Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra,
Khandwa the statements of respondent no.2, and her brother
Akash and mother Smt. Lata were recorded on 28th September,
2018 in which there is no whisper of demand of dowry and
harassment on account of non fullfilment of the aforesaid
demand and the dispute was related to nonadjustment or non-
cooperative attitude of the respondent no.2, which is not
unusual. It also appears that on behalf of the applicant no.1
divorce petition was filed before the Family Court, Khandwa on
19/09/2018 and notice was served before 25th October, 2018 and
14 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023thereafter on 28/10/2018, the FIR was lodged, this fact reflects
that it is counter blast of the action taken by the applicant no.1.
Apart from it, the allegation in the FIR are so absurd and
inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent man
can ever reach to the just conclusion that there is just reasonable
ground for proceeding further against the applicants.
6. There is no dispute about the legal preposition that the
truthfulness of the facts mentioned in the FIR and the charge
sheet can’t be adjudicated at this stage but if the avernment is
omnibus and not sufficient and not probable and do not prima
facie constitute any offence and the proceeding is started to
achieve the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, as counter
blast the same can’t continue and this Court under section 482
of the Cr.P.C is duty bound to set aside such proceeding.
7. The Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007)12 SCC
1 has observed in para 24 of the said judgment, which is as
under:-
“24. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide
have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great
caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the
court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of
the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of
the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing
injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific
provisions in the Statute.”
8. Now days it is general tendency to implicate in-laws by the
wife in case of demand of dowry just to take revenge on
account of bitterness emerged on account of nonadjustment in
the materimonial house. The provision of section 498A of the
IPC is not for that purpose. The Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal
Sharma & another vs. Monica [(2009) 10 SCC 604] in which
the Apex Court considering the judgment of the Apex Court in
Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 281] it
is held that :-
“10. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was
introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects
and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second
Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly
stated therein the increase in the number of dowry deaths is
a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been
commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to
examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In
some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the
husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the
15 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction
involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend
IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
‘CrPC’) and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively
not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of
cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws and
relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of
dowry death and cruelty.
……………
……………”
Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court as well as this Court has
considered this aspect that in the present scenario it is very easy to make
allegations not only against the husband but also against his family
members with an intention to rope them in a criminal proceeding. The
facts and circumstances of the present case also indicate that the conduct
of the complainant/wife i.e. respondent No.2 and her family members
for not initiating any action against the husband i.e. petitioner No.4 and
his family members when they were harassing her and demanding
dowry creates suspicion for the reason that when she left the house of
her husband and started living with her parents, no complaint in respect
of alleged offence was ever made at the relevant point of time, but on
the contrary a complaint got registered against respondent No.2 and her
family members as they have committed crime by assaulting petitioner
No.4 and his family members. It is also clear that petitioner No.4 i.e. the
husband was left with no other option but to register a divorce case
against his wife and when notice of the said case got issued and
respondent No.2 came to know about the said fact, she approached the
police and as such, FIR got registered against the petitioner No.4 and his
family members.
12. In absence of any strong evidence and material about demand of
dowry creates suspicion and as such, in view of the legal position as has
16 M.Cr.C.-44242-2023
been considered and observed hereinabove, I am also of the opinion that
this is a case in which the trial Court while framing the charges against
the present petitioners, did not consider the aspect that the material
collected by the prosecution in view of the facts and circumstances of
the case are insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498-A of
IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the present
petitioners and therefore, the proceeding initiated against the present
petitioners arising out of FIR No.189/2020 dated 24.11.2020 is hereby
set aside. Consequently, the order passed in Regular Criminal Trial
No.59/2021 on 10.03.2023 framing the charges and the order passed in
Criminal Revision No. 22/2023 on 05.08.2023 are also hereby set aside.
13. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rao
SATYA SAI RAO
2024.11.22 11:57:25
+05’30’