Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1065 (MP)

Gaurav v. State of M. P.

2015-10-06

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sheel Nagu, J. The inherent powers of this court u/S. 482 are invoked seeking quashment of FIR dated 27.6.2014 bearing crime no. 233/2014 registered at Police Station University, Gwalior, alleging offence punishable u/S. 498-A of IPC against the petitioners no. 1, 2 and 3 who are husband, brother in law and father in law respectively of the respondent no. 2/wife. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that marriage took place on 29.4. 2013 where after differences arose eroding matrimonial peace and harmony. Differences between the husband and wife started becoming frequent and intense which led to initiation of counselling before women counselling cell at the Mahila Thana. In the counselling the Station House Officer of the women counselling cell noted the contentions of both the parties and their demeanour and concluded with the noting that the allegation of respondent no. 2/wife was found untenable and no offence has been committed against the respondent no. 2/wife. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no cruelty has been extended by the petitioners towards respondent no.2/wife and instead it was wife and her relatives who were trying to take advantage by exercising undue pressure and threatening to falsely implicate the petitioners for extracting undue financial advantage. In furtherance to this, father in law of the respondent no.2/wife Dr. Naresh Agarwal (petitioner no. 3) made a written complaint on 26.3.2014 to the DGP, Bhopal in which apprehension was expressed that a false complaint can be initiated by the respondent no.2/wife against the petitioners. 3.1 As apprehended, the impugned FIR was lodged by the respondent which led to investigation and filing of charge-sheet leading to offence punishable u/S. 498-A. It is thus submitted that the factual background which clearly discloses that entire prosecution is based on malice and revengeful act with no iota of truth and there therefore impugned FIR is prayed to be quashed. 3.2 Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that all the ingredients of Section 498-A are present and therefore case u/S. 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioners. Thus inherent powers of this court u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C which have limited scope cannot be exercised. 4. 3.2 Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that all the ingredients of Section 498-A are present and therefore case u/S. 498-A IPC is made out against the petitioners. Thus inherent powers of this court u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C which have limited scope cannot be exercised. 4. The inherent powers u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C are to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection especially when truncating criminal prosecution launched by the State based upon investigation is triggered by FIR lodged u/S. 154 of Cr.P.C. The extent and limitation of this power are repeatedly, defined by the Apex Court. Some of the relevant extracts of the earliest and latest decisions on the point are reproduced below:- Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of A.P., (2007) 13 SCC 165 . 27. This Court then carved out some exceptions to the above stated rule. These are: [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388 ] "(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. ... 31...Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in FIR or complaint disclose commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. If the allegations contained in FIR or complaint disclose commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. ..." Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 . "18. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but the Courts failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. 19. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. ..." Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , "27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. " 4.1 The first and foremost ground on which criminal prosecution can be quashed is that on the bare reading of the allegations contained in the FIR and the supporting statements recorded u/S. 161 of Cr.P.C, the basic ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out. Abject mala fildes being the genesis of the impugned prosecution is another ground which can justify invoking of inherent powers. 4.2 Testing the allegations contained in the impugned prosecution on the anvil of the above said guiding principles, this court now embarks upon the exercise of ascertaining existence of justification for exercise of inherent powers. 4.3 The basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC are as follows:- 1. the offence should be committed by the husband or his relative, against a women and her relatives; 2. the victim should be wife of the husband; 3. the wife should have been subjected to cruelty (mental or physical). 4. the cruelty ought to be of such nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health mental or physical; 5. the cruelty may also be cause when harassment is meted out to the wife to coerce her or anyone related to her with the object of satisfying unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure of the wife or any person related to her to meet such demand. 5. The allegations in the instant case are made by the wife against the husband and his relatives who are the petitioners herein. Thus the first two ingredients contained in the foregoing sub-paras are satisfied; (i) As regards "cruelty", it is a concept which is not easy to define exhaustively and has to be deciphered from the allegations made by the wife. Thus the first two ingredients contained in the foregoing sub-paras are satisfied; (i) As regards "cruelty", it is a concept which is not easy to define exhaustively and has to be deciphered from the allegations made by the wife. Whether the allegations are of such a nature so as to drive the wife to commit suicide or put to impending danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical) or whether husband has meted out cruelty to wife of such nature so as to bring home charges u/S. 498-A beyond all reasonable doubt, cannot be decided at the stage of charge-sheet. (ii) The only fact which can be deciphered at the stage of FIR/charge-sheet is as to whether the nature of allegations regarding cruelty/harassment meted out to the wife are of such nature that a man of ordinary prudence can conclude that the wife is being subjected to cruelty as contemplated by Section 498-A. 6. Coming to the factual matrix containing the present case, it is seen from reading of the FIR dated 27.6.2014 that after the marriage was solemnized on 29.4.2013 between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, it is alleged that dowry demand was made by the petitioners. On non-fulfilment of this demand, it is alleged that respondent no. 2/wife was driven out of the matrimonial home at Noida on 29.12. 2013. It is further alleged by the respondent no. 2/wife that on informing about the said incident, the parents of the wife took her to Gwalior. Thereafter it is alleged that on 6.1.2014 the petitioner no. 1/husband came to Shivpuri parental home of respondent no. 2/wife and reiterated his demand of Rs. 5,00,000/-. On assurance being given to the petitioner no. 1/husband that the said demand would be met the respondent no. 2/wife was taken to the matrimonial home on 21.1.2014 where after the father of the wife gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner/husband and took assurance of the husband that he would not inflict further cruelty upon the wife. It is further alleged that on 1.2.2014 the wife was again driven out of the matrimonial home by the petitioners and was taken back to parental house by her parents on 4.2.2014. 2,00,000/- to the petitioner/husband and took assurance of the husband that he would not inflict further cruelty upon the wife. It is further alleged that on 1.2.2014 the wife was again driven out of the matrimonial home by the petitioners and was taken back to parental house by her parents on 4.2.2014. It is lastly alleged by the wife that despite repeated request made by the parents of the wife, the petitioners did not allow the wife to return to her matrimonial home and since then the wife is staying at her parents place till date. 6.1 The statements recorded u/S. 161 of the wife, her father and mother and her brother more or less to the line of the allegations made in the FIR by the respondent wife. 6.2 The harassment which respondent wife is alleging in her allegations in the FIR, supported by statement recorded Under Section 161 appears to make out a case which can fall within the definition of harassment as contained in explanation of Section 498-A. 6.3 Whether the said factum of harassment is of such intensity or frequency that can fall within four corners of cruelty is a matter of evidence which is to be decided by the trial court after adducing and marshaling of evidence. 7. The ground of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding counselling at the level of the women cell, Shivpuri is of no avail since any findings recorded in the process of counselling has no bearing to the tenability of the prosecution launched pursuant to the impugned FIR. The reason is obvious. Conciliation is initiated and conducted for different purpose. The purpose is to make an attempt for settlement of the dispute at the pre-FIR stage and to avoid the possibility of initiation of criminal prosecution. Whereas the object of the prosecution launched by FIR is to investigate, try and punish if the offence alleged is made out as per law. Thus, the purpose of conciliation and prosecution are distinct. The former in preventive while latter is curative and punitive. 8. On an overall assessment of evidence placed on record, this court has no manner of doubt that on prima facie assessment the basic requisite ingredients for making out the case under Section 498-A appear to be made out against the petitioners, when viewed from the perspective a man of ordinary prudence. 9. 8. On an overall assessment of evidence placed on record, this court has no manner of doubt that on prima facie assessment the basic requisite ingredients for making out the case under Section 498-A appear to be made out against the petitioners, when viewed from the perspective a man of ordinary prudence. 9. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. 10. Accordingly, this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C is dismissed without any order as to cost.