Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1247 (MP)

Sabra Khan v. State of M. P.

2015-12-15

S.C.SHARMA

body2015
ORDER 1. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashment of FIR by the petitioners who are the family members. 3. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.2 Smt. Ashima Khan was married to Shri Asif Khan who is the petitioner No.4 and she has lodged a FIR in the year 2014 stating that she is being harassed since 2005 by her in-laws. On the basis of the FIR, a crime has been registered against all the family members for an offence under section 498A/34 of IPC. The FIR lodged in the matter is on record and the same reads as under:- ^^eSa mDr irs ij jgrh g¡wA esjh 'kknh o"kZ 2005 esa esjs ek¡ firk us vkfjQ [kku iq= vktkn [kka fuoklh gosyh fiNokM ?kkleaMh ls eqfLye jhfr fjokt ls dh FkhA esjs firk us vius lkeFkZ ds vuqlkj nku ngst fn;k FkkA 'kknh ds ckn ls gh esjs ifr vkfjQ [kka] lkl lkaojk [kka] tsB bj'kkn [kka] vjln [kka] nsoj vkflQ [kka lHkh eq>s ngst ds fy, rkus nsdj vk, fnu ijs'kku djus yxs vkSj eq>s esjs ifjokj okyksa ls ckrphr o feyus ugh nsrs FksA dbZ ckj bu yksxksa us esjh ekjihV dhA ijlkas fnukad 26-2-2014 dks esjs nkÅ ds HkkbZ vQrkQ dqjS'kh tehu [kku rFkk esjh cgu usgk [kku eq>ls feyus vk, rc eSaus ?kVuk dh vkichrh iwjh crkbZ fd ;s yksx lHkh feydj vk;s fnu eq>s 'kkjhfjd rFkk ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djrs gSa] rks mUgksaus eq>s le>k;k fd ifjokj ls lkeatL; cukdj jgks ysfdu ;s yksx ugh ekus budh 'kkjhfjd] ekufld] izrkfM+rk ls esa dkQh ijs'kku gks pqdh g¡wA lks fjiksVZ djrh gw¡ dk;Zokgh dh tk,A** 4. In the FIR, statement has been made that she is being harassed since 2005 by in-laws and other family members which includes brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. There are allegations made in the FIR on the basis of which offence under section 498A/34 is made out. 5. The apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 , in paragraph No.20, 25 and 28 has held as under :- “20. There are allegations made in the FIR on the basis of which offence under section 498A/34 is made out. 5. The apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 , in paragraph No.20, 25 and 28 has held as under :- “20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the Courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding. 28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.” 6. The apex Court in the aforesaid case has dealt with cognizance of offence in respect of matrimonial dispute and has held that the allegation should be specific and disclosure of active involvement of the accused should be there in the FIR. The apex Court in the aforesaid case has also dealt with the issue of involvement of a large number of family members. 7. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the statements made by the daughter-in-law before the police does not constitute an offence under section 498A/34 of the IPC and therefore, the FIR itself deserves to be quashed. 8. 7. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the statements made by the daughter-in-law before the police does not constitute an offence under section 498A/34 of the IPC and therefore, the FIR itself deserves to be quashed. 8. In the case of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 , the apex Court in paragraphs No.32, 33, 34 and 35 has held as under :- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.” 9. This Court, keeping in view the aforesaid judgments delivered by the apex Court, looking to the fact that in the present case there is no specific allegation made against the family members including the mother-in-law, there is only allegation that she is being harassed since 2005 and the report has been lodged in the year 2014, is of the opinion that the FIR registered at Crime No.112/2014 under section 498A/34 of IPC as well as the charge-sheet and all other consequential proceedings deserves to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. 10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.