Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1129 (MP)

VIRENDRA LAKHERA v. DEEPSHIKHA LAKHERA

2015-10-27

ALOK ARADHE

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Sachin Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Since common questions of law and fact arise in these cases therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by the common order. 3. M.Cr.C. No. 184/2013 has been filed for quashment of offences under sections 9(1)b) and 37(2)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners in M.Cr.C. No. 8948/2013 are father and brothers of the petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 184/2013. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner in M.Cr.C. No. 184/2013 and the respondent got married. Thereafter, on account of dispute between the parties a mutual compromise was recorded between the parties which is evident from Annexure P/3. The aforesaid compromise was recorded in the presence of parents and relatives of the respondent and Inspector Chandra Shekhar Chowkidar of Police Station, Damua. Under the aforesaid agreement, the respondent agreed to withdraw all the proceedings initiated by her and thereafter joined the matrimonial home. While, she was living with her husband it was found out by the petitioner that the respondent is not mentally sound. Accordingly, treatment was given to her by Dr. Ratnesh Gurariya, Neuro Psychiatrist, Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur on 11-1-2012. The respondent was also advised admission in the hospital. Thereafter, the brother of the respondent on 12-1-2012 visited the house of the petitioner and took her away to Bhopal for treatment. The respondent was admitted in Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre between the period from 13-1-2012 and 17-1-2012. Thereafter, brother of the respondent filed a complaint in Police Station, Gorakhpur on 15-1-2012 as well as on 25-1-2012. The Police Authorities did not take cognizance of the matter and thereupon a complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class on 6-7-2012. The trial Magistrate vide order dated 22-12-2009 registered the offence under sections 9(b) and 37(2)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It is well settled in law that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash the proceedings in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It is well settled in law that power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash the proceedings in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 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. 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 malaciously instituted and the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. The continuance of criminal trial against such persons would tantamount to abuse of process of law. [See : Kailash Chandra Maheshwari and others vs. State of M.P. and others, 2006(1) M.P.L.J. 322 ]. A Bench of this Court in Dashrath P. Bundela and others vs. State of M.P. and another, 2012(1) MPHT 196 has held that where the allegations are made in the complaint are omnibus in nature, without mentioning any year, month, date or time in such a case continuance of the proceeding against the accused persons amounts to abuse of process of law. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legal position, the facts of the cases may be seen. Initially, a compromise was recorded between the parties on 6-1-2010 and thereafter the respondent joined the matrimonial home. From the order dated 22-12-2009, it is evident that the same does not show any exigency for registration of the offences against the petitioners. It is also relevant to mention here that the Respondent did not pay process fee from the period from 9-2-2010 to 28-5-2012, even though the matter was listed at least for 18 times. 8. From perusal of the complaint it is evident that in paragraph 4 of the complaint it is averred that on 19-7-2008 the petitioners beat the respondent, poured diesel and threatened to set her on fire as she failed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of demand. It is pertinent to mention that no such complaint was made by the respondent to the police authorities and after about 17 months of the aforesaid incident, the complaint was filed. 30,000/- by way of demand. It is pertinent to mention that no such complaint was made by the respondent to the police authorities and after about 17 months of the aforesaid incident, the complaint was filed. Thus in the fact situation of the case, the continuance of the proceeding against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law in view of the law laid down in Dashrath P. Bundela (supra). Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for offences under sections 9(b) and 37(2)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are quashed. 9. In the result the petitions are allowed.