Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1069 (MP)

JASPAL SINGH SODHI v. STATE OF M. P.

2015-10-06

M.C.GARG

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by petitioner Jaspal Singh Sodhi arrayed as accused in Criminal Case No. 1741/2014 (Crime No. 146/2014 of Police Station Cantt, District Sagar) and charge has been framed against him under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner is elder brother of Iqbal Singh Sodhi who is husband of the complainant. This case has been registered against the petitioner based on the First Information Report made by the complainant wherein she has made following allegations :— The statements of the complainant recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are as under :— 3. The complainant filed a criminal complaint before the competent Court at Sagar in which the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar vide order dted (sic : dated) 16-8-2014 framed charge against the petitioner under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the revision Court against the order of framing of charge but the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar vide impugned order dated 3-11-2014 dismissed the revision petition. It is against that order that the present petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. 4. According to the petitioner, a bare reading of the complaint and the statements under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly goes to show that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not living in the matrimonial home and is living outside Sagar. In fact he is presently living in Satna. Prior to that he was in Bombay. Copy of transfer letter is annexed herewith as Annexure A/3. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that in view of the order passed by the revisional Court dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner, no case can be entertained on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Once there are allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint, the Court has to proceed on the basis of the allegations so made. Once there are allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint, the Court has to proceed on the basis of the allegations so made. He has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Choudhary and others, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 681 wherein in Paras 13 and 14, it has been observed as under :— 13. After analysing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held (in Antulay case (1986) 2 SCC 716 ) that despite the differences there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied. 14. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is wide. This Court can pass appropriate orders in case there is misuse of process of law. It is submitted that bare reading of the statements made by the complainant leaves no room for doubt that the complainant has given the name of the present petitioner also as one of the accused only for mala fide intention and just to pressurize the husband’s family somehow according to her terms. He has relied upon a judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Kailash Chandra Maheshwari vs. State of M.P. reported in 2006(1) M.P.L.J. 322 wherein it has been held that :— 16. On meticulous analysis of the case it is manifestly clear that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is frivolous and suffers with mala fide. The allegations made against the petitioners appear to be inherently improbable, absurd and malicious. 17. On meticulous analysis of the case it is manifestly clear that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is frivolous and suffers with mala fide. The allegations made against the petitioners appear to be inherently improbable, absurd and malicious. 17. A Court of law cannot remain a silent spectator and cannot be made a tool of gratifying personal vengeance of any party. Tendency to wreak vengeance against all the family members and relatives of husband has to be checked and deserves to be nipped in the bud. In cases where the facts available on record prima facie indicate at the stage of framing charge that criminal proceedings have been initiated by the wife or her family members for wreaking her vengeance against all the family members of her husband, the trial Court should carefully examine the material on record and should not frame the charge against the persons, against whom the criminal proceeding prima facie appears to be maliciously instituted and the allegations being absurd and inherently improbable. 18. For the reasons stated above I am of the considered view that the factual position clearly shows that the continuance of the criminal trial against the petitioners would be sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised. Consequently, the position is allowed and the order of framing charges against the petitioners is set aside and the accused/petitioners are discharged. 7. Having given my thoughtful consideration on the submissions and also gone through the orders passed by the Courts below and complaint made by the respondent No. 2 as well as statement made by her under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I have no doubt but to hold that in this case implication of the present petitioner is only as an afterthought and just to pressurize the whole family. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of similar efforts made by the complainant in matrimonial case wherein it has now become a custom to array all the members of the family including outside relations whereas matrimonial dispute arises between the husband and the wife. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of similar efforts made by the complainant in matrimonial case wherein it has now become a custom to array all the members of the family including outside relations whereas matrimonial dispute arises between the husband and the wife. Such dispute certainly is on account of the allegation of cruelty but such dispute also arises when there is an involvement of any third party and also on account of the attitude and conduct of the wife in the family, who is not willing to live in matrimonial home along with the joint family and only wants to stay in a separate home along with her husband. The money dispute arises in case there are sisters to be married and the husband may not be in a position to meet the demands of the complainant/wife. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of Sagar but is working a Sales Representative and for the purpose, he has to go to various places. Earlier he was in Bombay and now he is staying at Satna. I appreciate and give full credence to the counsel arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner. At this stage, this Court is not required to look into defence of the accused but certainly taking into consideration the complaint itself, it very clearly goes to show that the name of the present petitioner has been added only as an afterthought and also statement recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code also goes to show that no overtact has been assigned against the petitioner which may make out a case under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. I am convinced that the implication of the present petitioner would be abuse of process of Court. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings undertaken against the petitioner are quashed. The petitioner is discharged of the offence framed against him. His bail bonds are discharged. 9. It is made clear that nothing stated by me would affect the merits of the case qua other accused persons. C.C. as per rules.