Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradip vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
1
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 10th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27148 of 2024
PRADIP AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Abhijeet Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Ajay Raj Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Manoj Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
............................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed for quashment of FIR in
Crime No.62/2024 for offence under Sections 498-A,323, 506/34 of IPC
registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore on 06.05.2024.
2. It is undisputed that marriage of the complainant-Anukriti was
solemnized with Sandip Gaur. Applicant no.1-Pradip is father-in-law and
applicant no.2-Sarla is mother-in-law of the complainant and parents of
Sandip, husband of the complainant. The aforesaid FIR has been registered
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
2
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
on the basis of written complaint by complainant-Anukriti to SHO, Mahila
Thana, Indore wherein it has stated that she was married to Sandip Gaur on
14.12.2021 by Hindu rites and customs. Her parents and relatives have
given in dowry jwellery and other house hold items. After a month of
marriage, her husband Sandip started interfering and harassing her
physically and mentally by assaulting. When she complained about the
behavior of her husband to the applicants, they always took side of her
husband and also used to tell that if they had married Sandip somewhere
else, they would have got much more dowry. They also used to instigate
Sandip for harassing her. Due to this day today harassment, she became
mentally ill. Just to maintain her marital life, she borne all these harassment
and humiliation from the last 2 ½ years. When she found that her husband
and the applicants are not going to mend their ways and pressurized her to
bring Rs.50 lacs from her parents, otherwise she will not remain alive, on
11.03.2024 she told about the affairs of her life to her brother Mohit and
came with him to her parental house. On 12.04.2024 she filed written
complaint for taking appropriate legal action against the applicants.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there are omnibus
allegations against the applicants. Neither any overt act is alleged in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
3
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
FIR, nor details thereof has been given. They are living away separately
from their son, therefore, there was no occasion of making demand of
dowry or harassing the complainant. It is also submitted that they have been
falsely implicated in the case being parents of Sandip, husband of the
complainant. To buttress his submissions learned counsel for the applicants
has also drawn attention of this Court to Annexure A-2, stay permit granted
to the applicants for living abroad. FIR is lodged by inordinate delay.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on paras
19, 20 and 21 of the order dated 13.02.2014 by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in M.Cr.C.No.5944/2012 Ravikant Dubey and others Vs. State of
M.P. and another which reads as under:-
“19. It is trite law that if the FIR does not disclose
specific allegation against accused more so against the
co-accused specially in a matter arising out of
matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the
legal and judicial process to mechanically send the
named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of
course the FIR discloses specific allegations which
would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the
offence alleged against the relatives of the main
accused who are prima facie not found to have
indulged in physical and mental torture of the
complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid
down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR
did not disclose the commission of an offence, the
court would be justified in quashing the proceedings
preventing the abuse of the process of law.
20. The Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:352914
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024another vs. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 has held as
under:
“9. In order to lodge a proper complaint,
mere mention to the sections and the
language of those sections is not the be all
and end all of the matter. What is required to
be brought to the notice of the court is the
particulars of the of- fence committed by
each and every accused and the role prayed
by each and every accused in committing of
that offence.
21. In this case also from perusal of FIR, it is clear
that only omnibus allegations were made by the
complainant. No specific date, time and place was
mentioned in the FIR. Apart that it cannot be subsided
that even after avail- ability of ample opportunities,
neither any FIR was lodged by the complainant nor
any private complaint was filed by her before any
Court.”
5. He has also placed reliance on para 12 of the judgment dated
18.08.2023 of Gujarat High Court in the case of Rameshbhai Danjibhai
Solanki and 7 others Vs. State of Gujarat and 1 other (s) in R/Criminal
Misc. Application No.3259/2016. On the aforesaid contentions learned
counsel for the applicants prayed for quashment of FIR and subsequent
proceedings thereto arising out of the aforesaid FIR.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that specific
allegations have been made against the applicants that they are
blackmailing the complainant for bringing Rs.50 lacs from her parents for
living peacefully and happily in the matrimonial house. Mere delay in FIR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
5
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
cannot be a ground for quashment of FIR, therefore, FIR cannot be
quashed, as this petition is sans merit. To support his contention learned
counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the order dated
15.06.2023 by Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.No.41764/2022
(Shubham and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another). He
has also placed reliance upon the order dated 11.05.2020 of the Division
Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C.No.51221/2019 (Ramesh Singh Bhadoria
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another), para 9 and 12 of order dated
31.05.2024 in M.Cr.C.No.9078/2022 (Smt. Aarti Kotwal and others Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and another), para 8 and 15 of order dated
13.03.2024 in M.Cr.C.No.21528/2022 (Chanrakant Shrivastava and
others Vs. State of M.P. and another), paras 7 and 8 of order dated
12.04.2024 in M.Cr.C.No.21128/2022 (Ritesh Sahu and others Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh and another).
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is settled that mere delay in filing FIR cannot be a ground for
quashment of FIR or criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case
of Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited. v. State of U.P. and
others, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 95 has held that in a petition for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
6
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
quashing the FIR, the Court cannot go into disputed question of fact. The
mere delay on the part of complainant in lodging the complaint, cannot by
itself be a ground to quash the FIR. The Court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in FIR or in complaint and criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at initial stage.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar and another v.
State of Punjab, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 690 has held that attack on
prosecution cases on the ground of delay in lodging FIR has almost bogged
down as a stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases. It is a recurring feature
in most of the criminal cases that there would be some delay in furnishing
the first information to the police. It has to be remembered that law has not
fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of
course, a prompt and immediate lodging of FIR is ideal as that would give
the prosecution a twin advantage i.e. firstly it affords commencement of the
investigation without any time lapse and secondly that it expels the
opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Even otherwise
promptly lodged FIR is also not an unreserved guarantee for the
genuineness of the version incorporated therein. There may be variety of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
7
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and another
vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3784 has held that
delay in registration of FIR, by itself cannot be a ground for quashing of
FIR. Thus, it is clear that merely because according to applicants there is
delay in lodging the FIR by itself is not sufficient to quash the same.
11. Accordingly, it is clear that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a
ground to quash the proceedings specifically when complainant can always
plausibly explain delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, it has also been
specifically mentioned by respondent No.2 in her FIR that she was
interested in saving her marital life therefore, she did not approach the
Police at the earliest. This explanation given by respondent No.2 is
plausible because the first attempt of every married woman would be to
save her marital life and not to start the criminal proceedings. Furthermore,
it is also the allegation of respondent No.2 that she is not being allowed to
come back to her matrimonial house.
12. Cruelty has been elaborated by the Apex Court in the case of Rupali
Devi v. State of U.P., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 wherein it has been
held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
8
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024“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 parental 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.”
13. It has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Cr.R.No.2376/2020 Amar Singh Vs. Smt.Vimla decided on 22.06.2021
that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home amounts to
cruelty. Similarly, in the instant case after harassment as alleged in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
9
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
written complaint and the FIR complainant has been compelled to live in
her parental home on account of cruelty, will also amount to mental cruelty.
It has been stated by the complainant that on 11.03.2024, she left her
matrimonial house and went to her parental house. It has also been held that
on 12.04.2024 in between 12:00 to 1:00 P.M. cruelty was meted out by way
of uncivilized behavior and threatening. Looking to the fact that her
husband and the applicants who are father-in-law and mother-in-law are not
mending their ways, she was compelled to file the complaint.
14. It is well settled that cruelty can be mental and physical. After
separation there may not be any physical cruelty, but separation of a
married woman from her matrimonial house on account of cruelty would
continuously traumatize her mentally. Therefore, mental cruelty would
continue. Accordingly, the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants
that FIR is bad in law on account of delay, is misconceived and cannot be
sustained.
15. Parameters for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
has been set out by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and
others Vs. Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and others (1992) SCC (Cri.) 426, wherein
the guidelines have been provided where the inherent powers under Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
10
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
482 of Cr.P.C can be exercised which reads thus:-
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(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.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:35291
11
M.Cr.C.No.27148 of 2024
16. There are specific allegations against the applicants about cruelty
meted out by them. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the considered view that no case is made out warranting
interference in prosecution case by way of invoking inherent powers of this
Court as provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 13/12/2024
18:27:26