Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1013 (MP)

Meena Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2015-09-23

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER : S.K. Palo, J. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR dated 4.2.2013 registered as Crime No. 103/2013 at Police Station City Kotwali, District Morena for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and its subsequent criminal proceedings. 2. The factual matrix as per the prosecution story is that the respondent No. 2, the complainant Smt. Sushma Sharma was married to the petitioner No. 9 Jitendra Sharma on 3rd December, 2011. The petitioner No. 9 Jitendra Sharma was the resident of Bank Colony, Agra. The petitioner No. 1 is the mother, petitioner No. 2 Shyam Babu is the father of Jitendra Sharma, petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 7 are the brothers of Jitendra and the petitioner Nos. 4, 6 and 8 are the sisters-in-law of the petitioner No. 9 Jitendra Sharma. Respondent No. 2 lodged a report on 4.2.2013 at Police Station, City Kotwali, District Morena that at the time of marriage, her parents had given sufficient items as dowry. However, after some days, her husband and his relatives the other petitioners demanded a car and gold ornaments as dowry and treated her with cruelty. On 28.11.2012 the respondent No. 2 was beaten and was brought to Morena in a Safari vehicle and was dropped her at her parental home threatening to kill her, her brother and father, if the demand of dowry is not met. She sustained injuries. Because of the fear, she did not lodge any report on 28th November, 2012. However, she lodged the report on 4th February, 2013. 3. On the basis of the report, Police Morena registered Crime No. 103/2013 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners. Charge-sheet has been filed before the learned JMFC, Morena. The petitioners have requested to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings of Police Station, City Kotwali, Morena. For the sake of convenience, the grounds are recapitulated in four parts as under: (i) That the alleged incident took place at Agra. Therefore, the Police Station, City Kotwali, Morena has no territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. (ii) Respondent No. 2/the complainant has registered the FIR due to her private and personal grudge, hence, no case is made out to proceed in the matter. Therefore, the Police Station, City Kotwali, Morena has no territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. (ii) Respondent No. 2/the complainant has registered the FIR due to her private and personal grudge, hence, no case is made out to proceed in the matter. No date and time is mentioned in the report about the alleged harassment caused to the victim. (iii) The petitioners further claimed that the so-called harassment was allegedly committed in the year 2012 whereas the report was lodged in the year 2013 after a lapse of one year which itself speaks that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are for the sake of allegations only. Therefore, the FIR was lodged on false and frivolous grounds. (iv) Some of the petitioners are living separately, on the basis of which they were granted bail. Therefore, implicating these petitioners for offence under Section 498A of IPC is bad in the eyes of law. In support of the contentions the petitioners relied on Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC (CRI) 667. Heard rival contentions. 4. On perusal of the record, it is found that the charge-sheet has been filed before the learned JMFC, Morena in which tire statement of Laxminarayan Sharma, Bhushan Sharma and Vivek Sharma it is indicated that the complainant was complaining to them about the cruelty and harassment caused to her by her husband Jitendra, mother-in-law Meena, brothers of her husband Devendra, Narendra and Sanjay and sisters-in-law of her husband Seema, Anjana and Priti. It is further stated that in their police statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 5. On 18 November, 2012, Respondent No. 2 Sushma, was brought to Morena in a private car by Jitendra Sharma, mother-in-law Meena, father-in-law Shyam Babu, brothers Devendra, Narendra and Sanjay and was treated her with cruelty. She also told her parents that the petitioners threatened her of her life as well as threatened to kill her father and brothers, if the demand of dowry is not met. It is true that the MLC was performed on 4.2.2013 after a lapse of about three months which may not be helpful to the prosecution. However, the statements of prosecution witnesses indicate that the part of the crime was committed at Morena, when she was brought to Morena and treated her with cruelty and was threatened of her life. It is true that the MLC was performed on 4.2.2013 after a lapse of about three months which may not be helpful to the prosecution. However, the statements of prosecution witnesses indicate that the part of the crime was committed at Morena, when she was brought to Morena and treated her with cruelty and was threatened of her life. 6. The petitioners have not alleged that the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act has been initiated against the respondent No. 2 that being so. Citation of Reeta Sharma and Others, v. State of M.P. & Another, III (2014) DMC 734=2014 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 174, is not attracted in the present case. 7. The petitioner has relied on Ravikant Dubey & Ors. v. State of M.P. and Another, II (2014) DMC 407=2014 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 162, in which it is held that "complainant was harassed since 27.11.2010 and report was lodged on 12.6.2012-Divorce Petition already filed by the husband-Case of matrimonial Bickering-Held, prima facie no offence is made out from the F.I.R. and quashed the same". 8. But, in the present case trial has commenced before the learned JMFC, Morena and there is nothing in the record to show that the husband/petitioner has filed any petition for divorce. Of course, there is delay in lodging the report but, in matrimonial cases it is very common that the parties and their relatives try to settle tire matter. They avoid lodging FIR so that the relations do not estrange. When the matter is not sorted out, as a last resort, they lodge the report. Therefore, on this sole ground proceeding cannot he quashed. 9. The petitioners also relied on an unreported case of Hariram Sehar & Others v. State of M.P., decided as Criminal Revision 965/2012 on 30.9.2014, in which this Court in a Criminal Revision having examined the meaning of "cruelty", held that, it is difficult to hold that any cruelty was meted out to the respondent by the accused/petitioners. Same is sufficiently proved from the evidence on record. Hence, order impugned was quashed. Therefore, revision was allowed and order by which charges have been framed under Section 498A of IPC was set aside. 10. Keeping in view the factual position of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly in rare cases. Therefore, revision was allowed and order by which charges have been framed under Section 498A of IPC was set aside. 10. Keeping in view the factual position of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly in rare cases. Present case did not warrant such exercise of inherent power vested in the Court. In this regard reliance can be placed on Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi and Others, VIII (2007) SLT 66=111 (2007) DLT (Crl.) 963 (SC)=II (2007) DMC 583 (SC)=(2008) 1 SSC (Cri) 399. 11. When the relative of the husband against, whom such allegations are made in the FIR and in the police statement by the witnesses for demand of dowry and harassment, quashing the FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not warranted. 12. In Section 498A of IPC, "Relative" has not been defined but in the Ramonath Aiyyar's advanced edition the word "relative" means any persons related by blood, marriage or adoption. The blood relations be divided into two categories: 1. Relations of Paternal side. 2. Relations of Maternal side. 1. Relations of Paternal side: (i) Father's father-Grandfather (ii) Father's mother-Grandmother (iii) Father's brother-Uncle (iv) Father's sister-Aunt (v) Children of uncle-Cousin (vi) Wife of uncle-Aunt (vii) Children of aunt-Cousin (viii) Husband of aunt-Uncle 2. Relations of Maternal side (i) Mother's father-Maternal grandfather (ii) Mother's mother-Maternal grandmother (iii) Mother's brother-Maternal uncle (iv) Mother's sister-Maternal Aunt (v) Children of Maternal uncle-Cousin (vi) Wife of maternal uncle-Maternal aunt 13. Keeping in view the above, it is crystal clear that the relatives of the husband of the complainant Sushma Sharma having blood relation with husband Jitendra can be treated as relatives of her husband. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there is prima facie sufficient evidence available against the petitioners to proceed under Section 498A of IPC. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another v. Monica and Others has perpetuated the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused is that, the facts stated against the accused have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another v. Monica and Others has perpetuated the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused is that, the facts stated against the accused have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. Appreciation, even in a summary manner, of averments made in a complaint petition or FIR is not permissible at the stage of quashment of criminal proceeding-Facts, as alleged, will have to be proved which can only be done in the course of a regular trial. In the same case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the meaning of "Cruelty" and explained that cruelty has defined under Section 498A of IPC has a two fold meaning-while instances of physical torture would be plainly evident from pleadings, allegations as to conduct which has caused or is likely to cause mental injury would be far more subtle, when statements can be understood as containing allegations of mental cruelty to complainant, quashment is not warranted. 15. In a recent case, Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that question of harassment, cruelty-is a matter of trial, at the stage, proceeding before trial-cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Reference can be made to Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and Others, reported as III (2005) DLT (Crl.) 280 (SC)=II (2015) CCR 123 (SC)=III (2015) SLT 161=I (2015) DMC 764 (SC)=2015(2)JLJ 1. 16. In view of the above, quashing the FIR at the initial stage is not appropriate. Therefore, applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the petitioners. 17. The petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.