Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 161 (MP)

Upendra Patil v. Megha Patil

2014-02-05

B.D.RATHI

body2014
ORDER : Rathi, J. -- 1. The instant petition is preferred under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the private complaint marked as Annexure P-1, dated 28.3.2007 as well as the order impugned dated 30.1.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.968/05 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior for registering a case against the petitioner for commission of offence under section 498A of IPC. 2. The case emerges out of the private complaint filed by the respondent before the Court marked as Annexure P-1, dated 28.3.2007 is to the effect that the complainant/respondent Smt. Megha Patil was married to the petitioner on 13.12.2006 at Pune as per the Hindu marriage rites and customs. It is stated in the complaint that from the next day of wedding, her mother-in-law, Smt. Indira Patil and elder sister-in-law (Nanad) Smt. Charu Sheela Gedam started taunting and scolding her on trivial issues and she was subjected to cruelty for giving insufficient dowry. She stated that her father and brothers as per their capacity performed well marriage and also gave cash amount, utensil and gold ornaments in dowry but the members of her in-laws’ family were not happy and she was subjected to harassment for demand of Rs. Two lacs by her husband on the instigation of her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She was told that until and unless the aforesaid amount is not paid, she will not be allowed to live in her matrimonial house. Even she was not given food and beaten by the accused. When the complainant realised that her life was in danger, she was compelled to tell everything to her parents who became very upset on hearing her woes. When her brother Deepak Shinde came to the matrimonial house at Puna on 4.2.2007 at that time also he was insulted and told by the accused persons to take her sister back with him till the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of dowry is not paid. She stated that her ornaments were taken out by mother-in-law and sister-in-law and she came to her parental house only with wearings and one suitcase. She stated that her ornaments were taken out by mother-in-law and sister-in-law and she came to her parental house only with wearings and one suitcase. In para 3 of the complaint again it was pleaded that on 22.2.2007 one phone call was made by Deepak Shinde (brother of the complainant) to the father-in-law of complainant to come and bring his sister back on which again it was stated by the father-in-law to keep his sister with him till arrangement of amount of Rs. Two lacs is made. On 25.2.2007, petitioner Upendra Patil came to Gwalior and the complainant and her brother both were told by him that unless and until the amount of Rs. Two lacs was not paid, the entry of complainant at her matrimonial house at Puna is not possible and by saying this the petitioner Upendra left the house of the complainant. In such circumstances, she filed a private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior praying for registering the case against the accused persons for commission of offence under section 498A/34 of IPC as well as section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and punishing them in accordance with law. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the complainant, the inquiry report of Mahila Police Station, Padav, vide Ex.P-5, dated 15.10.2007 as well as the statements of the complainant and her witnesses examined under sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, came to hold vide order dated 30.1.2008 that so far as accused/respondents No. 2 to 4, i.e., Prabhakar Patil, (father-in-law), Smt. Indira Patil (mother-in-law) and Smt. Charu Sheela Gedam (sister-in-law), the complaint against these accused persons is not maintainable because as per the own statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the incident of demand of dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and causing cruelty to the complainant for meeting out such a demand by the aforementioned accused No.2 to 4 happened at Puna. There is no allegation of causing maltreatment for demand of Rs.2,00,000/- against these accused persons at Gwalior. Hence, in such premises, the complaint against the aforesaid accused respondents No.2 to 4 is held to be not maintainable and dismissed. So far as accusedrespondent No.1 Upendra Patil is concerned, the Court has found prima facie case against him for prosecuting under the alleged offence. Hence, in such premises, the complaint against the aforesaid accused respondents No.2 to 4 is held to be not maintainable and dismissed. So far as accusedrespondent No.1 Upendra Patil is concerned, the Court has found prima facie case against him for prosecuting under the alleged offence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner, who is husband of the complainant has preferred this petition under section 482 of CrPC. 4. The quashment of the complaint and the entire proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior has been sought inter alia on the ground that the complaint has been lodged with mala fide intentions to harass the petitioner and that no case is made out against him. Principally the complaint and the entire proceedings of the trial Court are assailed on the ground the relevant facts for deciding the territorial jurisdiction has been overlooked by the trial Magistrate and in the same set of evidence, other co-accused have been benefited but the order impugned has been passed against petitioner mainly on the ground that he at once on 25.2.2007 visited parental house at Gwalior of the complainant and asked the complainant and her brother that until and unless the arrangement for giving an amount of Rs. Two lacs is not made by them he will not take his wife (complainant) back to matrimonial home at Puna. It is contended by the counsel that only this much averment is not enough in the absence of sufficient proof to infer and attract the provisions of offence under section 498A of IPC and the Court below has committed mistake of law. 5. That apart, for the sake of arguments, even if the facts of the complaint petition are taken to be true, even then they do not constitute any prima facie case making out an offence against the petitioner. The attention of this Court was drawn towards the contradictions and allegations made in the complaint which indicate that the complainant and her parental side have concocted the story to implicate the petitioner as well as other family members in a criminal case merely with a mala fide intention to settle her scores. The attention of this Court was drawn towards the contradictions and allegations made in the complaint which indicate that the complainant and her parental side have concocted the story to implicate the petitioner as well as other family members in a criminal case merely with a mala fide intention to settle her scores. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be allowed and the order impugned of the Magistrate passed against the petitioner under section 498A of IPC and entire pending criminal proceedings basing thereupon may be quashed on the same set of evidence. 6. Per contra, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for respondent is that the allegations made in the complaint petition constitute a continuing offence and in such a situation, the order cannot be said to have been passed lacking of jurisdiction. Hence, it is prayed that the petition sans substance and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the entire case has been examined. 8. In the factual background of the case it reveals that three fold contentions have been raised viz. (1) that the allegations are frivolous and without any basis (2) even according to the complaint petition, no incriminating acts have been done within the jurisdiction of Gwalior Police Station and the Court at Gwalior and (3) in such premises the learned Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction in directing to register the offence against the petitioner as per impugned order. 9. It is settled principle of law that only raising demand of any kind does not amount to cruelty. In this context, it is seen that the complainant has made only allegation against the petitioner that at Gwalior when he came amount of Rs. Two lacs was demanded. Except this no other act or overt act was assigned to have been committed by the petitioner at Gwalior. Therefore, firstly it cannot be said that demand of Rs. Two lacs at Gwalior was raised in continuation of the offence of cruelty committed at Puna. From the inquiry report submitted by Mahila Thana Padav, dated 15.2.2007 before the trial Magistrate it is clear that amount of Rs. Two lacs was not demanded. Therefore, firstly it cannot be said that demand of Rs. Two lacs at Gwalior was raised in continuation of the offence of cruelty committed at Puna. From the inquiry report submitted by Mahila Thana Padav, dated 15.2.2007 before the trial Magistrate it is clear that amount of Rs. Two lacs was not demanded. The only allegation made reveals from the report that on 17.5.2007 during the course of mediation proceedings it was stated by the complainant that being annoyed, it was falsely alleged that amount of Rs. Two lacs was demanded. The gist of the inquiry report submitted by Mahila Thana Padav was also reiterated in the impugned order by the learned trial Magistrate, therefore, the impugned reason assigned by the learned Magistrate that offence under section 498A of IPC, was also committed at Gwalior by the petitioner No.1 Upendra Patil was absolutely against the facts and evidence collected on record. 10. Apart that it was also the say of the trial Magistrate that offence of cruelty was committed by the other accused persons at Puna and therefore the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try with the case against the remaining accused persons but on the same set of evidence and facts the cognizance against the petitioner has been taken wrongly. 11. In addition to above, on perusal of the proceedings dated 15.2.2007, it is also evident that on 9.6.2007 the petitioner alongwith his uncle Sharad Rajaram Patil came to Gwalior in mediation proceedings at Mahila Thana Padav. They were ready to bring back the complainant to her matrimonial home. But when the complainant was called she denied to to back with them to Puna (matrimonial house). The report aforesaid at last indicated that after taking into consideration the statements of the witnesses the SHO of Mahil Thana Padav came to the conclusion that false allegations were made because petitioner Upendra is more oder than complainant and she dislikes him, therefore, she levied false allegations. 12. In the aforesaid premises, in the considered opinion of this court, simply by saying by the petitioner “until and unless the amount of Rs. Two lacs is not paid, complainant/wife shall not be brought back to Puna (matrimonial home)’, no offence is made out in the absence of cogent material on record in regard to cruelty committed at Gwalior. 13. For the aforesaid reasons detailing above, the petition is allowed. Two lacs is not paid, complainant/wife shall not be brought back to Puna (matrimonial home)’, no offence is made out in the absence of cogent material on record in regard to cruelty committed at Gwalior. 13. For the aforesaid reasons detailing above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure P-2) as well as the entire proceedings pending consequent thereupon against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Petitioner is discharged of the offence under section 498A of IPC. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below for necessary compliance. No order as to costs. ............