Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1208 (MP)

Ravi Mohan v. State of M. P.

2013-10-04

D.K.PALIWAL

body2013
JUDGMENT This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the EI.R. dated 20.5.2011 registered by Police Station Chanderi District Ashok Nagar at Crime No. 242/11 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. 2. The brief facts rise to this petition are that complainant-Smt. Seema Sharma lodged a report alleging that her marriage took place with Ravi Mohan on 25.2.2007. After six months of her marriage the family members of her husband namely Mahavir Prasad - father-in-law, Smt. Sushma Mother-in-law, Brij Mohan @ Rinku - Dewar and Mukti Sharma - Sister-in-law started abusing her and used to beat her and demand cash of Rs. 2,00,0007- and motorcycle. The complainant tolerated harassment for some time but when it becomes intolerable she informed her parents that her life is in danger, than her father came and took her with him to her paternal home. Her parents made several attempts to settle the dispute by calling the family members and relatives but in-laws of the complainant were not prepared to settle the dispute and interested for fulfillment of their demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and motorcycle, the father of the complainant is handicapped and retired person and he is not in a position to fulfill the demand. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Crime No. 242/11 under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. has been registered against the petitioners and after due investigation the Charge-sheet has also been filed. Being aggrieved the petitioners have preferred this petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they never made any demand of dowry from the complainant. The statement of the father of the complainant Rama Shankar Dixit and complainant-Seema Sharma recorded on 16.9.2010 by G.R.P. Police, apparently indicates that no demand of dowry was made. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before filing this petition. The petitioner no.-l has also made serious efforts to bring back the complainant, but no one gave any heed to the requests of the petitioner. During investigation no document has been considered by the Police Authorities. The investigation apparently indicates that there is an abuse of the process of Court. It is prayed that F.I.R. and related Charge-sheet be quashed. 4. During investigation no document has been considered by the Police Authorities. The investigation apparently indicates that there is an abuse of the process of Court. It is prayed that F.I.R. and related Charge-sheet be quashed. 4. Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that petitioners have made demand of dowry and due to non fulfillment of the demand harassed the complainant. Therefore, the complaint has been filed by the complaint. 5. Learned Counsel for the Government Advocate submitted that on the basis of the complaint, due investigation has been made and after investigation, the Charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, there is no ground to quash the proceeding. 6. To appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, record is perused. 7. It is not disputed that marriage of the complainant took place with the petitioner Ravi Mohan in accordance with Hindu customs and rites on 25.2.2007. From Annexure P-2, it appears that the petitioner Ravi Mohan has lodged a report regarding missing of his wife Smt. Seema and daughter Kumari Devika aged two years on 15.9.2010 at G.R.P. Police Station Indore. It appears that Smt. Seema reached G.R.P. Indore and her statement was recorded. On perusal of the statement of Smt. Seema, it appears that she has stated that she is M.A. and her husband studied up to B.A. and doing Panditai and keeping her in a joint family. The nature of her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law does not match with her nature. Therefore, she went to her parents house in the month of April 2009 along with her daughter. She further stated that on 13.9.2010, her husband came to bring her back on the advice of her mother and father and against her will, she accompanied her husband and boarded on train from Guna to Indore, however, She was not willing to go to her husband's house and when her husband was sleeping in the train, she alighted from the train at Ujjain station and came to her relative at Indore and informed her parents. Her father told that Ravi has lodged a missing report at G.R.P. Police Station, therefore, she went to police station. She does not want to go to her matrimonial house therefore she alighted at Ujjain. She would go with her father to Chanderi. 8. Her father told that Ravi has lodged a missing report at G.R.P. Police Station, therefore, she went to police station. She does not want to go to her matrimonial house therefore she alighted at Ujjain. She would go with her father to Chanderi. 8. Statement of father of the complainant Ramashankar has also been recorded by G.R.P. in which Ramashankar has stated that he sent his daughter with Ravi on 14.9.2010 for Indore, but his daughter did not want to go in her matrimonial home, therefore, she alighted at Ujjain station and went to her relative. 9. The complainant and her father nowhere had stated that the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant used to demand the dowry and harass the complainant. The statement of the complainant makes it crystal clear that her nature did not match with the nature of her husband and in-laws, that's why she left matrimonial home and started residing with her parents home. Had petitioners made any demand of dowry or harassed the complainant there was no reason not to mention this fact in her statement recorded by G.R.P. Indore 10. From the perusal of Annexure P-3, it appears that the petitioner Ravi has filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that in the month of April, 2007 his wife without any reason left the house and is residing with her parents house. She did not come back in spite of several attempts to bring her back. It is also alleged that a registered notice was also sent to the complainant but she did not come back. This petition has been filed on 3.2.2011. Annexure P-4 reveals that application has been submitted to S.H.O. Chanderi, Mahila Thana, Ashok Nagar, S.H.O. Pardeshipura, Indore and Mahila Thana, Indore, mentioning that complainant has left her matrimonial home in the month of April, 2009, and on 14.9.2010 when he went to bring her back, she was coming with him to Indore, but she has gone missing and hence he lodged a report at G.R.P. Police Station Indore. Thereafter, the complainant appeared at G.R.P. Indore and threatened the applicant to implicate in a false case. This application has been filed on 23.9.2010. Thereafter, the complainant appeared at G.R.P. Indore and threatened the applicant to implicate in a false case. This application has been filed on 23.9.2010. From the complaint filed by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police Ashok Nagar on 18.1.2011, it appears that it has been alleged in the complaint that after six months of marriage, in laws of complainant started abusing her and also demanding cash of Rs. 2,00,000/-and motorcycle. The harassment made by in-laws became intolerable and she informed her parents and her parents brought her back. In the last, it is mentioned that she wants that report should be registered against in-laws, so that they will come in pressure and accept her and her daughter. 11. As noticed hereinabove, there was no allegation regarding demand of dowry and harassment till 16.9.2010 when the statement of the complainant was recorded by G.R.P. Indore. The complainant has herself stated that she left her matrimonial home in the month of April 2009 because her nature was not matching with the nature of her in-laws and she remained in her parents house. From this, the allegation regarding demand of dowry and harassment if "If becomes false. Had there been any demand of dowry and harassment L^ husband and in-laws, it must have been mentioned in the statement on 16.9.2010 before the G.R.P. Police Indore. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010) SCC 667 have taken note of the growing tendency of filing of complaints which are not bonafide and filed with oblique motive and observed as under: "30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the Courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. " 31. The Courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code - xxxxxxxx 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either or their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Br who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavor to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases." 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Harayana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 325 laid down the principal of law enunciated in series of decisions relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and formulated the guidelines observing as under: "This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (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 concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specified provisions in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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.*' 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others vs. Mohd. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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.*' 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another, (2005) 1 SCC 122 has observed as under: "It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that inititation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is' made out even if the allegation are accepted in toto." 15. In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Inherent powers under section 482 of 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." 16. 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." 16. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrota and another vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has observed as under: "If the FIR as it stands 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 name accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognisance 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". 17. In the instant case, as noticed above, the complainant is residing with her parents since April 2009 and she has not made any allegation regarding demand of dowry and harassment by the petitioners in the statement given before G.R.P. Indore on 16.9.2010. Thus it becomes crystal clear that the complainant has lodged the complaint with a view to harass the petitioners. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners amounts to an abuse of process of law. The petition deserves to be allowed. 18. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the EI.R. dated 20.5.2011 registered by Police Station Chanderi District Ashok Nagar under Section 498-A of I.P.C. at Crime No. 242/11 is hereby quashed.