Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 175 (MP)

Sushil Keshwani v. State of M. P.

2016-03-01

N.K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. The applicants have challenged the registration of Crime No.136/2013 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, Gwalior for the offence under sections 498A, 494 and 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that respondent No.2 had lodged an First Information Report before the Police Station Mahila Thana Padav on 19.7.2013 that she was a divorced woman and her marriage took place with one Vikas Motwani on 18.6.2012. Her husband was working at Muscat Oman since last 15 years and he came to celebrate his holidays at Gwalior in the house of his mother and thereafter the applicants with connivance of Vikas Motwani misrepresented that the marriage of Vikas Motwani was dissolved and he obtained the legal divorce from his first wife. The forged documents were shown by the applicants relating to that divorce. After marriage, complainant found that Vikas Motwani was not a B.Com Graduate but he had passed only Class -12th. Similarly, fake birth chart was given to match the birth chart. Vikas Motwani was suffering from high blood pressure and hernia. He was in the habit of smoking. He was a miser person, who harassed the complainant with the help of his mother Pushpa Motwani and the applicants. On the second day of marriage, the applicants along with husband of the complainant closed the doors of the house and asked for the articles given by the parents of the complainant and thereafter abused her because no golden ornaments or chain was given to her husband. After marriage when her husband went to Muscat, he was cautioned by the applicants that don't call his wife (complainant) to his place. He was directed to earn for three years and send the amount to the applicants from time to time. The complainant was not permitted to go Bhopal, ultimately after three months of her marriage, her father came to take her and thereafter by getting visit visa, she went to Muscat. However, her husband treated her in bad manner. She was harassed physically and mentally. The complainant has mentioned various facts about the harassment done by her husband at Muscat thereafter she came back and still she was being harassed by the applicants, therefore, she had lodged the first information report. 3. However, her husband treated her in bad manner. She was harassed physically and mentally. The complainant has mentioned various facts about the harassment done by her husband at Muscat thereafter she came back and still she was being harassed by the applicants, therefore, she had lodged the first information report. 3. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the complainant had made some allegations against her husband. Omnibus allegations were made against the applicants, who were not residing with mother-in-law of the complainant. Applicant No.2 is a married daughter of the family and she was residing with the applicant No.1 in the locality of Sikandar Kampoo, Lashkar Gwalior. It was alleged against the applicants that they committed forgery by showing that the husband of the complainant was a divorced person, however the offence under section 494 of IPC is not cognizable offence and therefore, it is for the complainant to lodge a separate complaint for that offence against the applicants or her husband. According to the first information report, marriage of the complainant took place on 18.6.2012 and she has mentioned that on the next day of marriage, the applicants closed the doors of the house and told her to show the articles given by her parents, thereafter, she was blamed that she did not bring the golden ornaments or chain for her husband. However, in the first information report it was mentioned that the harassment was done between the period from 24.6.2012 to 19.7.2013, it means that no harassment was done in first six days of marriage of the complainant and therefore, such blame appears to be fake. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that after that blame, nothing has been alleged by the complainant against the applicants. It was blamed that the applicants told her to transfer the amount from her salary to their accounts, if she wants to go to Muscat to meet her husband, then it was for the complainant to show as to whether she transferred any amount of her salary to the account of applicants, but not a single amount is shown to be transferred by the complainant. On the contrary, she was residing at Bhopal along with her father and she directly went to Muscat. On the contrary, she was residing at Bhopal along with her father and she directly went to Muscat. No allegation has been levelled by the complainant that after coming back from Muscat, she resided at Gwalior or the applicants have tried to visit Bhopal for any demand of dowry etc. 5. On consideration of factual position, it appears that the complainant did not mention the date when she came from Muscat and she resided with her mother-in-law or the date on which she was harassed by the applicants. She has blamed the applicants for their activities of the second day of her marriage but according to first information report, she did not mention that day in the period of harassment. Similarly, if the applicants would have given any threat that if she wants to go to meet her husband at Muscat, she would have to deposit some portion of her salary in their accounts then without doing so, she could not go to Muscat and therefore, such blame appears to be baseless. The applicants were not residing with Pushpa Motwani, mother-in-law of the complainant and therefore, there was no day to day interference of the applicants in the family life of the complainant and her husband. By perusal of first information report, it appears that the complainant resided at her father's house after coming back from Muscat and she also left the house of her mother-in-law within three months of her marriage. No cogent allegation has been made against the applicants to show that they harassed the complainant for demand of dowry or otherwise. 6. In this connection, the learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of apex Court in the case of “Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another [( AIR 2010 SC 3363 )], in which it is held that now a days the tendency of bride is increasing to implicate all the family members of the husband, who have no role in the family life of the concerned wife, therefore, such persons should not be bothered to face the trial without any reason. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, if the factual position of the case is examined then there is no specific blame against the applicants about dowry demand and harassment. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, if the factual position of the case is examined then there is no specific blame against the applicants about dowry demand and harassment. Two minor blames were made against the applicants for which a detailed discussion has been done in previous paras of the order, hence in the light of the judgment of Preeti Gupta (supra), it appears that the applicants are implicated in the matter being relatives of the husband of the complainant otherwise there is no specific allegation made against the applicants about their overt acts, which may fall within the purview of offence under section 498A of IPC or section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, it is a case in which the applicants should be released from the situation that they are facing the trial of a matter in which there is no specific basis for prosecution. 7. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case in which the petition under section 482 of CrPC filed by the applicants Sushil Keshwani and Smt. Kavya Keshwani may be accepted. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Registration of Crime No.136/2013 at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav District Gwalior is hereby quashed. Consequently, the trial of Criminal Case No.9469/2013 pending before JMFC, Gwalior against the applicants is quashed. The trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings against the applicants.