Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 581 (ALL)

ISHWAR KUMAR LAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-02-20

SUNIL HALI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Applicants are facing trial in Case No. 6373 of 2008 (State v. Ishwar Kumar Lal and others) pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case crime No. 898 of 2008 under Section 498-A IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. After registration of the FIR investigation in the matter was initiated. Subsequently, a charge-sheet has been filed before the Court concerned in which process has been issued against the accused persons. Vide order dated 10.5.2009, this Court directed that no coercive process should be initiated against the applicants in the aforesaid case. 2. The allegations contained in the FIR are that respondent No. 2 Madhu Lal was married to applicant No. 1 on 19.11.2000. Out of this wedlock, one son was born. After marriage, the complainant was living with the applicant No. 1 at District Jamnagar, Gujarat. It is contended that from the investigation it was revealed that the applicants were harassing respondent No. 2 physically as well as mentally, as a consequence of the harassment, she aborted a child. There is no mention in the FIR that any demand of dowry was made by the applicants. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the same allegations are repeated that she was tortured physically as well as mentally. She has further stated that the applicants did not permit her to go to her parental house at Kanpur. It is further revealed from her statement that the applicants told her that she would be treated like this as promise made by her father was not fulfilled. On the occasion of marriage of her sister, she went to Kanpur and stayed there with her parents. It is alleged that on 4.9.2008, her husband, brother-in-law and one Mukta Prasad came inside her parental house. It is stated that the said accused persons told the father of the non-applicant that she will be treated in the same way as she failed to bring the dowry. 3. In the statement recorded by her father the same story is repeated. From the statement of the witnesses it clearly reveals that the FIR was filed on 20.9.2008 while the date of incident is 11.11.2000. 3. In the statement recorded by her father the same story is repeated. From the statement of the witnesses it clearly reveals that the FIR was filed on 20.9.2008 while the date of incident is 11.11.2000. The facts, as are revealed from the FIR and from the statements of the witnesses, reflect the following things: (a) that the marriage had taken place in the year 2000 and ever since her marriage, the applicants have been harassing the non-applicant by causing her physical as well as mental pain; (b) that demand of dowry for the first time is reflected in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; (c) that she is stated to be living with parents since 26.6.2008 while the FIR was lodged on 20.9.2008; (d) that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is stated that the applicants Ishwar Kumar Lal, Shiv Kumar Lal and Mukta Prasad came to the house of the parental house of non-applicant and they were asked by her father as to why she was being harassed by them they told that the demand of dowry was not met out, and as such, she will be treated like the same way. 4. From the facts, as revealed herein above, it is clearly visible that in the FIR it has not been mentioned that the applicants came to the house of the non-applicant at Kanpur. This improvement has been made only when her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. As a matter of fact, from a reading of the FIR, it is not revealed as to where this harassment was caused to non-applicant. Mere reading of the FIR by itself reveals that after the marriage, non applicant was living at Gujarat. Before initiating investigation in the matter, it was required to be seen whether concerned Police was competent to initiate investigation in the matter. Admittedly, it was shown that after her marriage she was living at Gujarat. However, the concerned Police Station without examining the contents of complaint initiated investigation in the matter. 5. The allegations contained in the FIR and the statement of the non-applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are vague. There are no particulars given as to on which date dowry was demanded nor the place and time where she was harassed. The complaint and the statement clearly lack particulars. There is no injury report filed alongwith the charge-sheet. 5. The allegations contained in the FIR and the statement of the non-applicant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are vague. There are no particulars given as to on which date dowry was demanded nor the place and time where she was harassed. The complaint and the statement clearly lack particulars. There is no injury report filed alongwith the charge-sheet. The cruelty, which the non-applicant was subjected to, is not mentioned as to from which date cruelty was inflicted. 6. In order to constitute cruelty, as defined under Section 498-A IPC, the woman must be subjected to harassment with an intent to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand, which is not met by the woman or her relatives. The suffering caused to the non-applicant must lead to infliction of pain upon the body or the feeling and emotions, abusive treatment, inhumanity and outrage. One act of cruelty would also not be sufficient to cause mental agony to a person. A single act of cruelty would not be sufficient to attract provision of this section unless such a cruel treatment is spread over a period of time. The complaint and the statement are vague as to on which date the mental injury was inflicted. On the basis of vague assertions, the case has been registered and process has been issued. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not all and end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. 7. All these things are missing the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The most fatal aspect of the matter is that the investigation of the case was done by the Kanpur Nagar Police and when admittedly no offence is alleged to have taken place at Kanpur Nagar. As a matter of fact, F.I.R. does not reveal as to where offence has taken place. It appears that in order to create cause of action at Kanpur Nagar, improvements have been made in the statement of the witnesses. Prima facie, it is clearly established that no offence has taken place at Kanpur Nagar. As a matter of fact, F.I.R. does not reveal as to where offence has taken place. It appears that in order to create cause of action at Kanpur Nagar, improvements have been made in the statement of the witnesses. Prima facie, it is clearly established that no offence has taken place at Kanpur Nagar. What appears from the F.I.R. is that the complainant was living with her husband at Gujarat, if at all, any offence was committed, as alleged, is at Gujarat. 8. Lastly, the complaint also does not indicate what was the role of each of the applicants. In this behalf, I am fortified with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti, (2010) SCC (Crl.) 286. The Apex Court has observed as under : “In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.” It is also reflected from the FIR and the statement of the non-applicant that the marriage took place in the year 2000 and FIR was lodged after 8 years of marriage, which by itself reflects the improbability in the story. It is clearly visible from the facts and material brought on record that the present case has been filed only in order to harass the applicants. It is clearly visible from the facts and material brought on record that the present case has been filed only in order to harass the applicants. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings of Case No. 6373 of 2008 (State v. Ishwar Kumar Lal and others) pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case crime No. 898 of 2008 under Section 498-A IPC and Section ¾ D.P. Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar are quashed. ——————