Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 886 (MP)

Kallu Khan v. State of M. P.

2013-08-01

D.K.PALIWAL

body2013
ORDER 1. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the Criminal Case No.2183/2012 pending in the Court of CJM, Guna, under sections 498A, 506, 323 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are tha, respondent No.2, who is the wife of the petitioner No.3 Imran Khan, has lodged the report against the petitioners who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband respectively, alleging that her marriage was solemnized in accordance with Muslim rituals on 17.12.2003 with Imran Khan and after marriage Imran Khan and Kallu Khan started demanding cash of Rs.1 lac. When the complainant stated that her father is not in a position to fulfil the demand, then respondent No.2 was harassed and beaten by the petitioners and when respondent No.2 told this fact to her parents, then her father tried to settle the dispute but petitioners continued their demand. It is further alleged that on 22.7.2012 petitioners have beaten the complainant and left her in her parental house. On 18.9.2012 at about 12:00 p.m. petitioners came at parents house of the complainant and started beating the complainant and insisted to fulfil the demand of dowry. On the report, FIR at Crime No.417/2012 under sections 498A, 506, 323, 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the petitioners and after due investigation charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of CJM, Guna. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners have committed the alleged offence. It is further submitted that petitioner No.3 is residing separately with his parents since 2005 and in this regard agreement has also been executed. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant and before lodging the FIR complainant had filed an application under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and reply ws filed by petitioner No.3 on 18.9.2012 and on the same day complainant has also filed an application for interim maintenance. Criminal proceedings have been initiated by the respondent with a view to harass the petitioners. Prima facie, there is no material against the petitioners for holding that they have committed the alleged offence. 4. Criminal proceedings have been initiated by the respondent with a view to harass the petitioners. Prima facie, there is no material against the petitioners for holding that they have committed the alleged offence. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that after due investigation the charge-sheet has been filed and there is ample material against the petitioners that they have committed the offence punishable under sections 498A, 506, 323 and 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibiton Act, hence, no interference is required. 5. From perusal of the report lodged by Kafiya Khan, it is transpired that her marriage took place with Imran Khan on 17.12.2003 and after marriage, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law used to demand dowry of Rs.1 lac. She was treated with cruelty due to non-fulfilment of the said demand. It is further alleged that on 22.7.2012 she was beaten by her husband and her in-laws and they left her at her parental home. On 18.9.2012 her husband and in-laws came to her parental house and demanded dowry and beaten her. 6. The application filed by Kallu Khan to SHO, P.S. Aron, reveals that Kallu Khan has stated that he has separated his son vide agreement dated 29.7.2011, this application has been submitted on 5.8.2010. Imran Khan has submitted an application before S.P. Guna alleging that his wife is threatening him to implicate in dowry case. It appears that on 25.7.2012, respondent has filed an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jeth and two sisters-in-law alleging that she is being mentally harassed because she could not deliver the child. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the report lodged at Police Station, Kotwali on 18.9.2012, it is mentioned that on 22.7.2012, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband beaten her and left her in parental house at Guna, however, report of the incident was not lodged on 22.7.2011 and no reason has been mentioned why report of the incident, which took place on 22.7.2012 was not lodged. 8. 8. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged by the respondent-complainant on 18.9.2012, it appears that soon after her marriage, her husband and in-laws used to demand Rs.1 lac and when she told that her father is poor and he cannot fulfil the demand, she was beaten and harassed by her husband and in-laws. 9. There is no whisper why respondent-complainant remained mum till filing of this report dated 8.9.2012. Had really there been some truth in the allegation, atleast some complaint would have been made to the nearest relative or some Panchayat would have been called, but about 9 years have passed and nowhere any complaint has been lodged by the respndent-complainant regarding the demand of dowry and harassment by the husband-in-laws. 10. From the perusal of the report as well as the statement of respondent-complainant and her father, mother and brother Farid Khan and Iqbal recorded under section 161 of CrPC, it appears that omnibus allegation of demand of dowry has been made but no specific month, date and time is mentioned. Though, it is not a stage for finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegation but looking to the allegation that after marriage respondent-complainant was being harassed for and in connection with the demand of dowry, the silence of respondent-complainant for about 9 years, shows that allegations is so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same. 11. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 , have taken note of the growing tendency of filing of complaints which are not bona fide and filed with oblique motive and observed as under : “30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfrotunately 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 498A of the Penal Code .... 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. 31. The Courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498A of the Penal Code .... 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A 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. 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 on their advice or with their concurrence.The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour 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 tranquality of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.” 12. In the instant case as noticed above the allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment prima facie have no ring of truth and appear to have been made with a view to harass the petitioners. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Suppl. In the instant case as noticed above the allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment prima facie have no ring of truth and appear to have been made with a view to harass the petitioners. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, laid down the principle of law initiated in series of decisions relating to exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC and formulated the guidelines observing as under : “This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the CrPC under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482, CrPC 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-congnizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-congnizable 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 absured 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 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.” 14. Hon’ble apex Court in the cse of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others v. 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 initiation/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 v. 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 CrPC, 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 lelading 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 Mehrotra and another v. 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 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.” 17. In the instant case, as discussed above, it is apparent tht the allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and beating made against the petitioners appears to be inherently improbable, absurd and malicious. It appears that allegations have been levelled with a view to harass the petitioners. 18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of the criminal trial against the petitioners would be sheer abuse of process of law. 19. Consequently, petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Case No.2183/2012 pending before the CJM, Guna is hereby quashed. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.