Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1086 (MP)

Shivdulare Singh Kaurav v. Rajkumari

2017-10-12

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioners vide instant petition invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing their prosecution under section 498A of IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Criminal Case No.530/2014, registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Lahar, District Bhind. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent Smt. Rajkumari was married with Jitendra Singh Kaurav on 17.2.2012. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are father and mother of Jitendra Singh Kaurav, respectively. The complainant/respondent filed a private complaint on 8.1.2014 before the JMFC Lahar against the petitioners along with her husband Jitendra Singh Kaurav with the allegation that her father gave sufficient dowry at the time of her marriage but she is continuously being harassed by the petitioners for demand of Scorpio vehicle. It is further alleged that the respondent Raj Kumari Bai was beaten by the petitioners with respect to demand of dowry and they threatened her to be deserted from her matrimonial house if the demand is not fulfilled. On 23.4.2012 petitioners along with their son Jitendra Singh came to drop her to her parental house and they beaten her. Thereafter, they used to visit the house of the respondent's parents and during their visit the petitioners beaten her and repeated their demand of Scorpio vehicle and threatened that if their demand is not fulfilled, they will perform second marriage of Jitendra Singh. The respondent submitted a complaint and requested to register the FIR against the petitioners but the police did not take any action prompting the respondent to file complaint case before the JMFC, Lahar under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. After filing of the complaint, the JMFC recorded the statements of the respondent and her witnesses under section 200 and 202 of CrPC and on the basis of complaint and statements of the witnesses took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to seek quashing of criminal proceedings, the instant petition has been filed. 4. After filing of the complaint, the JMFC recorded the statements of the respondent and her witnesses under section 200 and 202 of CrPC and on the basis of complaint and statements of the witnesses took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC. In order to seek quashing of criminal proceedings, the instant petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the marriage the respondent lived for some time with Jitendra Singh Kaurav, son of the petitioners, and thereafter she left the house of the petitioners without any reason and started living at her parental house at village Badagaon, Tahsil Daboh, District Bhind. The respondent demanded Rs.2,50,000/- for the need of her family, which was deposited by their son Jitendra Singh in the account of the respondent on 5.3.2012. After lapse of much time when the respondent did not return to her matrimonial house then their son Jitendra Singh filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right before the Family Court at Gwalior on 30.8.2012, which was got withdrawn by Jitendra Singh for the reason that despite notice issued by the Family Court the respondent has not turned up. Then, Jitendra Singh preferred an application under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce from the applicant before the Family Court Gwalior on 2.4.2014, in which notice has been issued to the respondent. In these proceedings the counsellation proceedings have failed then the respondent has approached to the police but after due enquiry the police has found that no case for offence under section 498A of IPC is made out against the petitioners. After that, just to harass the petitioners the respondent preferred a complaint before the JMFC, Lahar but without taking into consideration the material aspect of the matter and following the guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2014(4) MPHT 81 (SC), the Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC, which is illegal and contrary to law and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners purchased the land in the village of respondent on 12.4.2012, of which mutation has already been done. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners purchased the land in the village of respondent on 12.4.2012, of which mutation has already been done. This mutation order has been challenged in the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer by the father of the respondent and due to dispute with regard to land the respondent filed the complaint for the offence under section 498A of IPC against the petitioners and Jitendra Singh. It is further stated that the complaint has been filed as a counterblast to quash the proceeding of Hindu Marriage Act initiated by Jitendra Singh against the respondent. Therefore, it is prayed that the cognizance taken by the Court below against the petitioners for the offence under section 498A of IPC be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no strong prima facie case made out in favour of the petitioners. He further submitted that the question whether the petitioners harassed and treated the respondent with cruelty is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at this stage. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2015(2) JLJ 1= (2015)11 SCC 260 . Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. I have perused the complaint and evidence of respondent and her witnesses, namely, father Mangal Singh, brother Vishal and maternal grandfather Lallu Singh, along with the documents filed with this petition. 8. It is undisputed fact that the respondent Rajkumari is living separately from 23.4.2012. From the perusal of record it reveals that her husband Jitendra Singh filed a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right against the respondent on 30.8.2012 but that petition was withdrawn by Jitendra Singh, however the copy of the order sheet has not been filed. Therefore, it is not clear that why Jitendra Singh has withdrawn that petition. Although the respondent lodged complaint against the petitioners and Jitendra Singh with the allegation that she was being harassed by them since after the marriage to meet out the demand of Scorpio vehicle but after due enquiry the police has not taken any action against the petitioners and Jitendra Singh and concluded that the allegation made by the respondent is false and malafide. Then, the respondent filed a complaint case before the concerned Magistrate under section 200 of CrPC on 8.1.2014. Thereafter on 2.4.2014 Jitendra Singh Kaurav has filed divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent before the Family Court, Gwalior. So it cannot be said that after receiving the notice of divorce petition, as a counterblast the respondent has filed private complaint against Jitendra Singh and his parents. 9. From the perusal of record it appears that the police has recorded statement of the respondent-complainant during enquiry, in which she has stated that the behaviour of her father-in-law was cordial with her and she has made complaint with respect to behaviour of her mother-in-law. In these circumstances, the statement of respondent Rajkumari is de hors the allegation made in the complaint that her father-in-law harassed her for demand of dowry. 10. In this view of the matter, the present application under section 482 CrPC is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 4.8.2014 passed by JMFC, Lahar District Bhind in Criminal Case No.530/2014 is set aside to the extent it relates to the petitioner No.1 and the complaint made against him is hereby quashed. However, the proceeding of the said criminal case shall continue against the petitioner No.2. 11. It is made clear that the trial Court shall decide the case without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.