Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1170 (MP)

Ankit Neema v. State of M. P.

2015-11-16

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This application under section 482 of CrPC is filed for quashment of the FIR filed at Police Station Annapurna, District Indore in Crime No.664/2012 under section 498A of IPC. 2. As per the facts stated in the FIR, the complainant and respondent No.2 here, lodged a report at Police Station Annapurna, District Indore on 11.11.2012 stating therein that she was married to applicant No.1 on 27.6.2010 at Ujjain. After marriage, she came to her matrimonial house at 81, Siddhi Vinayak Vinay Nagar, Kesharbag Road, Indore. After 15 days of marriage, applicant No.1 went back to America. Even before her husband left India for America, respondents No.2 and 3, father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing her and committed cruelty on her for bringing more dowry from her parents. They also beat her and used to say that they spent money on the education of the applicant No.1, that they will recover from father of respondent No.2. After insisting on many times, her parent-in-laws took her to America on 20.7.2012 after two years of her marriage and there, all the three applicants committed cruelty on her and also got many papers signed by her. On 5.10.2012, she was driven away from her home at Boston, America. Thereafter, her father arranged her stay with Avinash Gupta at Columbus, America. She lived with him till 3.11.2012. On 2.11.2013, her father died and thereafter, she came back to India and lodged report on 11.11.2012. 3. This application under section 482 of CrPC is filed on the ground that applicant No.1 has been serving in USA and he is Chartered Accountant by profession. On 27.6.2010, he married respondent No.2 at Ujjain. After 15 days of marriage, he left India for USA and respondent No.2 remained with applicants No.2 and 3. For two years, she mostly lived with her parents at Ujjain and occasionally she used to live with respondents No.2 and 3 at Indore on various festivals. Respondents No.2 and 3 always wanted that she should go to America and live with her husband. However, whenever, she applied for visa, she intentionally gave wrong answers to the questions put to her during interview. Therefore, visa was rejected. Finally, she went to USA on 20.7.2012 to live with her husband. Respondents No.2 and 3 always wanted that she should go to America and live with her husband. However, whenever, she applied for visa, she intentionally gave wrong answers to the questions put to her during interview. Therefore, visa was rejected. Finally, she went to USA on 20.7.2012 to live with her husband. After living there together for some time, they reached to the conclusion that it was not possible for them to live together, therefore, they filed a joint petition before the Court of Commonwealth of Massachusetts in USA. The said petition was allowed and decree of divorce was passed by the Court in USA. After the divorce, she left house of applicant No.1 and went to live in her relatives house. All the documents filed before the Court were signed by respondent No.2 voluntarily. After coming back to India, she lodged FIR in question. 4. According to the averments made in the application, applicant No.1 always lived in USA and, therefore, he could not commit any cruelty on her. The allegations against applicants No.2 and 3 are omnibus in nature. No specific date and time was stated in the FIR. Therefore, this application is liable to be allowed. 5. Respondent No.2 filed a joint petition of divorce, therefore, it is clear that no dispute was left between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2, therefore, lodging of FIR is mala fide. It is also averted that under section 188 of CrPC, for enquiry of trial of the offence, which is committed outside India, sanction of Central Government is required but no such sanction was obtained before proceeding investigation in this case. 6. Counsel for the applicants submits that when the FIR was lodged by respondent No.2, their marriage was already annulled and the applicant No.1 was not her husband. However, in the present case, it is submitted by the applicants that joint application was fileld before the foreign Court along with affidavit etc. in which it was mentioned that marriage was irretrievably broken and divorce be granted according to the provision of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 208(1-a). 7. The first question arises for consideration is whether, this decree can be recognized in this country. On this point, the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of N. Narasimha Rao and others v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and another, reported in (1991)3 SCC 451 , may be referred to. 7. The first question arises for consideration is whether, this decree can be recognized in this country. On this point, the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of N. Narasimha Rao and others v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and another, reported in (1991)3 SCC 451 , may be referred to. In paragraphs 20 and 21, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed thus : "20. From the aforesaid discussion the following rule can be deduced for recognizing foreign matrimonial judgment in this country. The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign Court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under thish the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows : (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties. 21. The aforesaid rule with its stated exceptions has the merit of being just and equitable. It does no injustice to any of the parties. The parties do and ought to know their rights and obligations when they marry under a particular law. They cannot be heard to make a grievance about it later or allowed to bypass it by subterfuges as in the present case. The rule also has an advantage of rescuing the institution of marriage from the uncertain maze of the rules of the Private International Law of the different countries with regard to jurisdiction and merits based variously on domicile, nationality, residence-permanent or temporary or ad hoc forum, proper law etc. and ensuring certainty in the most vital field of national life and conformity with public policy. The rule further takes account of the needs of modern life and makes due allowance to accommodate them. and ensuring certainty in the most vital field of national life and conformity with public policy. The rule further takes account of the needs of modern life and makes due allowance to accommodate them. Above all, it gives protection to women, the most vulnerable section of our society, whatever the strate to which they may belong. In particular it frees them from the bondage of the tyrannical and servile rule that wife's domicile follows that of her husband and that it is the husband's domicilliary law which determines the jurisdiction and Judges the merits of the case." 8. Applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, prima facie, it appears that decree is not recognizable in India. This apart, when the offence is alleged to have taken place, respondent No.2 was wedded wife of applicant No.1, therefore, he cannot now be heard to say that after divorce, no case is made out against him. 9. Next comes the question is whether, the investigation can be carried out without sanction of Central Government as mandated by section 188 of CrPC. On this point, judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Thota Venkateshwarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another, reported in 2001(4) Crimes 19 (SC) may be referred to. In this judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that upto taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of proviso to section 188 of CrPC. However, trial cannot proceed beyond cognizance stage without sanction of the Central Government. It was further held that the Magistrate may proceed with the trial regarding to the offence alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of offence allegedl to have been committed outside India, Magistrate would not proceed with the trial without sanction of Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to section 188 of CrPC. 10. Accordingly, at this stage, when the investigation is going on, no sanction of Central Government is required. However, for particular offence which is taken place outside India, sanction of the Central Government is required which can be obtained after taking of cognizance by the Magistrate. Accordingly, at this stage, the investigation can go on and the arguments putforth by counsel for the applicants in respect of application of section 188 of CrPC are not applicable in this case. 11. Accordingly, at this stage, the investigation can go on and the arguments putforth by counsel for the applicants in respect of application of section 188 of CrPC are not applicable in this case. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 where, Hon'ble the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines and gave list of the circumstances under which the powers granted under section 482 of CrPC can be exercised. Some of them are whether, the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and other evidence collected in respect of the same do not disclose commission of offence against the accused. It is also laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there are grounds for proceeding against the accused. When there is legal bar under the provision of the Code or in other law which is applicable. When criminal proceedings are mala fide or whether, they are instituted for wreaking vengeance on the accused. 12. Applying these principles on the facts of the present case, the allegations were made in the FIR that applicants No.2 and 3 demanded dowry and committed atrocity and harassment. The details may be given by the complainant in her statement under section 161 of CrPC and also before the Court, there is no need to give every minute detail in the FIR itself. Similarly, so far as the applicant No.1 is concerned, arguments of counsel for the applicants is that he was no present in India for two years, therefore, no case is made out against him for which he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 , in which it was held that married sister-in-law, who is living with her husband and unmarried brother-in-law, who is living separately from the married couple cannot be implicated under section 498A of IPC. In that particular case, couple was living at Bombay and immediately after the marriage, complainant moved to Bombay to live with her husband where, dispute arose between the couple. However, in the present case, applicant No.1 is husband and this principle laid down in the case of Preeti Gupta (supra), cannot be applied in the present case. 13. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference under the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under section 482 of CrPC. The application is devoid of merit, liable to be dismissed and is hereby, dismissed.