Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1090 (MP)

Ravi v. State of M. P.

2014-09-01

B.D.RATHI

body2014
JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1043/13 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena. 2. Brief facts that would emerge from the FIR dated 3/1/2013 are that the marriage of the respondent No. 2-Smt. Pratibha was solemnized with petitioner No. 1-Ravi Parashar on 21/11/2007 as per Hindu customs and ritual rites. It is stated that in the marriage of her daughter, the father of respondent No. 2 had given some articles in the shape of dowry to the husband-petitioner No. 1 and his other relations. It is also stated that till one year, the petitioners kept the respondent No. 2 well but thereafter petitioners started raising demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and for non-fulfillment of their demands, respondent No. 2 was subjected to physical and mental torture. Ultimately, respondent No. 2 was turned out from the matrimonial home on the pretext that she had not brought sufficient dowry. Hence, she lodged the report against the petitioners. Crime No. 8/13 was registered for committing offence under section 498A of I.P.C. and pursuant thereto criminal case is pending before the court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition inter alia submitting that the FIR was lodged with malafide intentions to harass the petitioners and that no case is made out against the petitioners as well as other family members. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a false report has been lodged against the petitioners and it is against such brief factual backdrop that a suit for divorce was filed against the respondent No. 2 by her husband/petitioner No. 1, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further pointed out by the counsel that on perusal of the pleadings of the petition filed under Section 13 of the HMA, it is evident that the marital relations were not cordial between the both right from the beginning and therefore the petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for divorce in the month of July, 2012. It is further pointed out by the counsel that on perusal of the pleadings of the petition filed under Section 13 of the HMA, it is evident that the marital relations were not cordial between the both right from the beginning and therefore the petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for divorce in the month of July, 2012. He also filed a private complaint on 26/9/2012 against his wife/respondent No. 2 and others in the criminal court to register a case under section 323, 294, 506 part-II/34 of I.P.C. and to counter blast the same respondent 2 has lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners on 3/1/2013. She also filed an application for grant of Rs. 10,000/- towards monthly maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for herself and her child against her husband/petitioner No. 1-Ravi. It is further pointed out by the counsel that during the span of five years neither such complaint was filed nor such allegations were made by the respondent No. 2. On the contrary, she on her own free will left the matrimonial house and started living with her parents at Ambah for the last one year. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken as true, even then on their face value they do not disclose prima facie commission of the offences against the petitioners. Hence, on these premised submissions, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the relief claimed for may be granted in favour of the petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon. Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta & another Vs. State of Jharkhand & another, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 667 and of this court in the case of Ravikant s/o Chandrashekhar Dubey & others Vs. State of M.P. & another, 2014 (1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 282. 4. Controverting the arguments aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/complainant, submitted that the FIR and the initial depositions of the witnesses prima facie disclose commission of the offence alleged and therefore the impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed, at this stage. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 was subject to cruelty and harassment for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 was subject to cruelty and harassment for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. The statements of witnesses on record corroborated the statement of the respondent No. 2 and proved the offence alleged, hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed for want of substance. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for parties, the entire case has been examined. 6. In the light of the contentions raised by the parties, it has to be first determined what is the nature and scope of the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a proceeding at this initial stage and what are the materials which the court can look into for exercising such power. 7. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of the court for ends of justice. It is well settled that the exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceeding instituted on complaint or FIR is called for only where the complaint or FIR does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 8. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp (1) 335, the Hon. Supreme Court mentioned by way of illustration seven categories of cases which are by no means exhaustive, in which the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings at the initial stage. One of them is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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 and also 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. 9. Now, the next question remains to be answered is whether any ground is available at this stage for quashing the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings pending in the trial court ? 10. 9. Now, the next question remains to be answered is whether any ground is available at this stage for quashing the charge-sheet and the entire proceedings pending in the trial court ? 10. It is admitted that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1-Ravi with respondent No. 2-Smt. Pratibha was solemnized on 21/11/2007 and out of their wedlock, a male child was born. It is further admitted fact that the respondent No. 2 did not raise any dispute for the last five years and when her husband presented a suit under Section 13 of the HMA in the year 2012 for seeking divorce on account of cruel some behaviour on the part of his wife towards him, she woke up. The petitioner No. 1-Ravi also filed a private complaint on 26/9/2012 against his wife and others in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena to register a case under section 323, 294, 506 part-II/34 of I.P.C. Having come to know about such happenings, she lodged the FIR to rope in her entire in-law's family including her husband for demand of dowry. In the FIR lodged by the complainant, there has not been given any single instance with mentioning the date, time and place of incident. 11. In the same situation, the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) has held as under: "The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in a majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant wife resided would have an entirely different complexion. Such allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. " 12. The allegations of harassment by the husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant wife resided would have an entirely different complexion. Such allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. " 12. This court also in the case of Ravikant (supra) after following the principles laid down in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) held that when FIR does not disclose specific allegation or constitute a prima facie offence against the accused, the court should not be slow and quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of law. 13. Thus, on coming to the facts of the case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners except casual reference of their names, but mere casual reference of their names in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter of demand of dowry would not justify taking cognizance against the petitioners overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency now a days 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. As discussed above, since the allegations in the FIR are patently absurd and inherently improbable and the basic ingredients of the offence alleged are not prima facie established by the allegations, this court is of the considered view that the continuance of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court and for the ends of justice, the impugned proceedings should be quashed, even at this initial stage. 14. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1043/13 arisen from crime No. 8/13 registered at Police Station Morena Kotwali pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena or in the Court of JMFC Morena and the charge-sheet against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Copy of this order be sent to the concerning Court for compliance.