Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 858 (MP)

Saurabh Tripathi v. State Of M. P.

2016-09-22

ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER : Shri Shishir Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri R. K. Awasthi, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State. Shri Pooran Singh Rana, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. With the consent of parties, matter heard finally. 3. The present petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the present petitioners seeking quashment of FIR registered against them vide Crime No. 481/2015 at Police Station Hazira, District-Gwalior for the alleged offences under sections 498-A, 323 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are brother in law and sister-in-law (Jeth and Jethani respectively) and petitioner No. 3 is sister-in-law (Nanad) of respondent No. 2/complainant. 5. A complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 on 23-9-2015 and FIR was registered under sections 498-A, 323 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners as well as husband of the complainant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage of respondent No. 2/complainant was solemnized on 3-6-2013. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living separately at Bangalore (State of Karnataka) since 2011; much before the marriage of respondent No. 2/complainant. Petitioner No. 1 is working as software consultant at Bangalore. Necessary documents have been filed in this regard as Annexure P/4 to P/7. Similarly, petitioner No. 3 got married 15 years back prior to the alleged date of incident and she resides with her husband separately in different house in Gwalior city and at no point of time, she resided with respondent No. 2/complainant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the marriage of the complainant solemnized on 3-6-2013, some differences have cropped up in the relationship of the complainant and her husband Gourav Tripathi, therefore, her husband has made a complaint to the Police Station, Hazira on 26-8-2015 regarding misbehaviour of the complainant/his wife. He categorically alleged in the said complaint about the intention of his wife (present complainant) to implicate him and his family members on false pretext. On 27-8-2015, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District-Gwalior also, alleging the same facts. He categorically alleged in the said complaint about the intention of his wife (present complainant) to implicate him and his family members on false pretext. On 27-8-2015, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, District-Gwalior also, alleging the same facts. On the basis of the complaint filed by the husband of the complainant-Gourav Tripathi on 21-9-2015, both the parties were called upon by the Family Settlement Center, Gwalior and after discussions with both the parties, the matter was partially settled and next follow up date was given as on 28-9-2015 wherein, the husband and wife had to appear and further resolve their differences, if any, existed. It seems that before the next follow up date i.e. 28-9-2015, respondent No. 2/complainant had filed a complaint on 23-9-2015 for demand of dowry along with certain other allegations and FIR was registered. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that during the reconciliation proceedings also, the complainant had never alleged about the act of petitioners for demand of dowry. Implication of the petitioners is in fact came as an afterthought. Further contentions of the petitioners are that they have been falsely implicated in the present case while they have not committed any alleged offence in any manner whatsoever. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living at a distinct place at Bangalore whereas petitioner No. 3 is a married woman living with her husband and family members and not living with the present complainant. They have no reasons to harass the complainant or to make any demand of dowry. Only omnibus allegations against the present petitioners have been levelled and no specific instances of demand of dowry have been mentioned or elaborated by the complainant. Neither the complaint nor the statement made by the complainant as per section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code could suggest the involvement of present petitioners for demand of dowry. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 , and followed by this Court in the matter of Dashrath P. Bundela and others, 2012(1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 543. 10. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/State on the basis of the case diary submits that the complainant has made the allegation against the present petitioners and therefore, the case has rightly been registered against the present petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant (Smt. Jyotirani Tripathi) submits that the petitioners also demanded dowry from the complainant telephonically and they were involved in the demand of dowry therefore, they have been implicated. He also submits that the statements of complainant and her sister suggest the involvement of present petitioners. Both the counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the case. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the record. 12. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living at Bangalore since June, 2011. Copy of the house rental agreement as well as the pay slip of the employer/company have been filed by the petitioners to establish the fact that they are living at Bangalore since year 2011. Similarly, petitioner No. 3 is also living at different place in Gwalior which is reflected from the document (Aadhar Card) of petitioner No. 3 filed along with the petition. 13. From perusal of the documents, it is further figured out that souring of relationship between husband and wife led to reconciliation proceedings before the Family Settlement Centre and at the time of filing of complaint, the said re-conciliatory proceedings were under way. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the complainant has made two complaints against his wife, prior to F.I.R., one is on 26-8-2015 to Station House Officer, Police Station Hazira and another on 27-8-2015 to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior about the misbehaviour of his wife and about the prospective line of prosecution she may adopt against him and his family members. According to the husband of the complainant, his wife used to compel him to leave the present place of their marital home and settle at Delhi; city of her maternal home. 14. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living at such a distant place at Bangalore from where the allegation of demand of dowry can not be expected to be true or can be substantiated. It is ridiculous to expect the demand of dowry telephonically. 14. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are living at such a distant place at Bangalore from where the allegation of demand of dowry can not be expected to be true or can be substantiated. It is ridiculous to expect the demand of dowry telephonically. Similarly, perusal of the case diary and challan papers reveals that only omnibus allegations have been levelled against the present petitioners. No specific allegations in respect of demand of dowry and/or mental or physical harassment have been alleged. 15. The law is well settled in this regard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, has deprecated this practice of implicating the family members of the husband in FIR as co-accused in the matrimonial disputes. The Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta (supra) has held as below :— 30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the Courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the Society. 31. The Courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under : “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. — Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. — For the purpose of this section, ‘cruelty’ means — (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised 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 the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the 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 allegation 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.” 16. Similarly, in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra and another (supra), the Supreme Court has again reiterated almost the same spirit. 17. This High Court in the matter of Dasrath (supra) while considering the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta (supra) has quashed the prosecution under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the near relatives of husband of the complainant because there is no specific allegations about the demand of dowry and the time when she was beaten, specific month, year or date and time and by whom, was not mentioned. 18. The ratio of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court as well as this Court suggests that allegations of harassment of husband’s close relatives, who had lived separately and occasionally visited the matrimonial house of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. The Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated that when the matrimonial dispute arises between the parties of marriage, they lead to multiple cases, therefore, the Apex Court expected from the learned members of the Bar that they should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court has mandated that when the matrimonial dispute arises between the parties of marriage, they lead to multiple cases, therefore, the Apex Court expected from the learned members of the Bar that they should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 19. Sounds like detouring, but goes in line with context when this Court relies upon the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , wherein Supreme Court has dealt with in respect of matter related to section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and had given certain directions, as contained in para-11. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has deprecated the growing tendency of impleading the relatives of the family of husband under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code for harassment. 21. Para-4 of the said judgment is a revelation for better understanding of the controversy which reads as under :— “There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. section 498-A, Indian Penal Code was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that section 498-A, Indian Penal Code is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for the offence under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under the Penal Code. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under the Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of the Penal Code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under section 498-A, Indian Penal Code is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as, 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.” 22. In the light of aforesaid principle of law, I have carefully considered the allegations made in the FIR and statement recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code in relation to demand of money and alleged harassment to respondent No. 2/complainant. There is no specific allegation that when demand was made, when she was beaten, by whom, no specific year, month, date or time was mentioned. Before registration of the FIR, husband of the complainant has already expressed his apprehension about the conduct of his wife in the complaint made to the Station House Officer Police Station Hazira, Gwalior as well as Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. Further the re-conciliation proceedings were under way at Family Settlement Center when the FIR was registered on the complaint filed on 23-9-2015 by respondent No. 2/complaint. These aspects also indicate that the complainant has deliberately implicated the present petitioners for demand of dowry or for harassment. 23. The investigating Officer while investigating the case under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code should also take note of the mandate given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of those relatives who are living at different city or separately and desists from arraying them as accused on the basis of omnibus allegations. Similarly, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to objectively consider the factum of reconciliation proceedings if any going on between the parties as well as the apprehensions of husband and/or his relatives reflected through some complaints made to police authorities. These aspects may not be conclusive in nature, but certainly indicate the complexion of the controversy. 24. Similarly, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to objectively consider the factum of reconciliation proceedings if any going on between the parties as well as the apprehensions of husband and/or his relatives reflected through some complaints made to police authorities. These aspects may not be conclusive in nature, but certainly indicate the complexion of the controversy. 24. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no prima facie case made out against these petitioners; near relatives of husband of respondent No. 2/complainant and permitting to continue such criminal proceedings against them would be abuse of process of law. Hence, prosecution against these petitioners is liable to be quashed. 25. Thus, the petition is allowed and the prosecution launched against these petitioners (three in number) on the basis of Criminal Case No. 481/2015 registered at Police Station Hazira, District-Gwalior for the offence under sections 498-A, 323 and 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and subsequent proceedings, if any, are hereby quashed.