Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 428 (MP)

Rashid Jamil Siddiqui v. State Of M. P.

2017-03-31

J.P.GUPTA

body2017
ORDER : This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred for seeking quashment of the proceeding with regard to Criminal Case No. 17010/2010 pending before the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur on the basis of charge-sheet filed against the applicant alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2. 2. Having regard to the contention of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in this case these facts are relevant and uncontroversial that the applicant and respondent No. 2 both are qualified doctors their arranged marriage were took place on 18-9-2002. The applicant belong to Barabanki (U.P) and parents of the respondent No. 2 reside at Jabalpur. After the marriage the couple went to Saudi Arabia for work and both got job in Saudi Arabia. The respondent No. 2 enhanced her qualification there. The couple got blessed with two sons of their wedlock on 30-8-2003 and 15-9-2004 respectively and they used to live like ordinary husband and wife and the couple used to visit India every year for 45 days and stay at their parents residence as is normally done by any married couple. They also booked a villa in Eledeco Townee Lucknow with joint name in March 2007. Brother of respondent No. 2 also staying in Saudi Arabia and on 26-3-2008 the respondent No. 2 renewed her service agreement with King Abdul Azeez Hospital till March, 2009 where she was working. 3. It is also not disputed that on 28-3-2008 they came in India with their two children. After landing in Delhi at International Airport, the applicant went to Barabanki, Lucknow and the respondent No. 2 along with two children went to Jabalpur. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 with both the children are residing in her parental house at Jabalpur. On 14-11-2008 the respondent No. 2 informed the builder that the house should not be registered in the single name of the applicant without her personal presence or written consent and the respondent No. 2 was not inclined to join the company of the applicant and to leave the custody of children in favour of the applicant and in this regard some dispute was taken place. Thereafter the applicant filed “Habeas Corpus” petition on 14-11-2009 on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and both children against the father-in-law of the respondent No. 2. Between 7-3-2010 to 10-3-2010, father of the respondent No. 2 filed reply with affidavit showing that the respondent No. 2 and children are living in the parental house wilfully and not interested to join the company of the applicant and lastly proceeding was dropped and on 16-4-2010 respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR at police station Garha, District Jabalpur, which was registered as Crime No. 260/2010 for offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the applicant. On 18-2-2011 in Writ Petition No. 902/2009 filed by the applicant before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court passed an order with regard to permit the applicant to meet his children with the observation that at the time of meeting with the children if any hinderance is created by any person, the applicant may seek assistance of the local police concerned. On 2-2-2012 the applicant also filed a case before the Family Court Jabalpur under section 7 and 19 of the Guardian & Wards Act for custody of both his children, which was decided against the applicant on 30-9-2013. Against which appeal is pending. In December, 2013 the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is still pending. The respondent No. 2 also filed the case for dissolution of Muslim marriage under section 2 of Muslim Marriage Dissolution Act, 1939 on 13-5-2014 and in this Case No. 224-A/2014 on 29-4-2016 the decree for dissolution of the marriage was passed in favour of the respondent No. 2. During the aforesaid period the applicant also filed petition for restitution of conjugal right in the Family Court, Barabanki (U.P) bearing Case No. 847/2015 and the same was granted by the ex parte order dated 15-3-2016. 4. On 16-4-2010 the respondent No. 2 lodged FIR against the applicant in the police station Garha, District Jabalpur, which was registered as Crime No. 260/2010 under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. It would be appropriate to reproduce the FIR here which is as under :- 5. 4. On 16-4-2010 the respondent No. 2 lodged FIR against the applicant in the police station Garha, District Jabalpur, which was registered as Crime No. 260/2010 under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. It would be appropriate to reproduce the FIR here which is as under :- 5. Thereafter the police finding support from the statement of the respondent No. 2 and her parents and other family members completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the applicant showing him absconded for the purpose of proceeding under section 299 of the Cr.P.C on 31-12-2010 before the JMFC, Jabalpur where the applicant is presenting and the proceeding is going on. 6. The applicant filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C on 26-3-2011 for quashment of the aforesaid proceeding on the ground that neither the FIR nor the statement of the complainant contains any substantial allegations of dowry or gross harassment that requires invocation of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code unless alleged act comes under the purview “cruelty” as defined in the explanation in section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The criminal proceeding against the applicant amounts to abuse of the process of law. Apart from it, in view of the aforesaid uncontroversial facts and alleged incident be considered in right perspective, prima facie it appears that the aforesaid proceeding against the applicant are malicious and deserves to be quashed as on behalf of the respondent No. 2 from the date of marriage i.e. 18-9-2002 till the date of lodging of FIR i.e. 16-4-2010, there were no allegation regarding mal-treatment or harassment. 7. Before returning to India on 28-3-2008, there was no dispute among the applicant and the respondent No. 2. They were living happily and booked house in the joint name at Lucknow. 7. Before returning to India on 28-3-2008, there was no dispute among the applicant and the respondent No. 2. They were living happily and booked house in the joint name at Lucknow. After 28-3-2008 the respondent No. 2 refusing to return with him along with children and the applicant was also denied access to his two children and in this regard he made an attempt through police Jabalpur and by filing “Habeas Corpus” petition in November, 2009 and after that filing of reply with affidavit on behalf of father of the respondent No. 2 in March, 2010 as a counter blast on 16-4-2010 aforesaid false FIR was lodged in respect of the incident that is said to have happened on 12-4-2010, which is apparently an isolated incident from 28-3-2008 to 16-4-2010, the parties are not living together and there is no demand of dowry. With a view to deny access to his two children as tool to keep the applicant away from his children and does not visit Jabalpur to meet his children. 8. The applicant have made an attempt to settle the dispute through mediation before Family Advisory Office, S. P., Jabalpur where the complainant/respondent No. 2 did not turn up. Further submitted that the FIR and charge-sheet did not contain any allegation with regard to constitute the commission of offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code by the applicant and investigation is also not fair knowing the fact that applicant working in Saudi Arabia and usually after gap of 6 months comes to India without giving any information to him, he was declared absconded and the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Jabalpur for proceeding under section 299 of the Cr.P.C This instance reflect that without investigating the matter sincerely and making any effort to find out truth, the charge-sheet was filed and false case under section 12 of Prevention of Woman from Domestic Violence Act also filed against the applicant with a view to harass him. 9. On behalf of the applicant it is further submitted that at the time when the FIR was filed, the applicant and the complainant were married. However, subsequently, on the complainant’s petition, divorce has been granted and applicant is no longer husband of the complainant. 9. On behalf of the applicant it is further submitted that at the time when the FIR was filed, the applicant and the complainant were married. However, subsequently, on the complainant’s petition, divorce has been granted and applicant is no longer husband of the complainant. In addition, the two children of the applicant from the complainant/respondent No. 2 are also living with the complainant and the applicant has been granted limited visitation rights by the competent court. Therefore, the pending criminal proceeding is nothing but a tool at the hands of the former wife/complainant to bully the applicant and is an abuse of process of the law. It may further be noted that the complainant despite orders of the learned trial court is not appearing for recording of her evidence and evidently wishes to keep the counter blast proceedings pending, which are abuse of process. Hence the proceeding be quashed. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 refuting the all contentions raised on behalf of the applicant submitted that the allegations against the applicant with regard to commission of offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code are true and prima facie constitute the offence. Merely on the basis of further development in the circumstance, the applicant cannot be exonerated from the offence committed earlier and it cannot be said that it is a case of counter blast or malice or with a view to prevent the applicant exercising his visiting right to children. Further submitted that exchange of SMS between the applicant and the respondent No. 2 disclose cruel behaviour and mentality of the applicant and existence of real danger with the safety of the respondent No. 2 and her children and her relatives. If the proceeding is quashed, it will amount to deny justice to the respondent No. 2. Hence the petition be dismissed. 11. In view of the aforesaid contention of the parties and the uncontroversial facts of the case, it is to be decided that whether the FIR or the charge-sheet have necessary averment or material with regard to constitute the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the applicant or aforesaid criminal proceeding against the applicant is malicious or counter blast action after starting legal efforts to get the children in custody. 12. With a view of aforesaid purpose, first of all it would be appropriate to examine the law. 12. With a view of aforesaid purpose, first of all it would be appropriate to examine the law. The learned counsel for the applicant have place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Swapnil and ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 567 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in para 11 as under :- “11. The second respondent has been living separately since April, 2011 and hence, there is no question of any beating by the appellants as alleged by her. The relationship having got strained ever since April, 2011, even application for restitution of conjugal rights having been withdrawn on 16-4-2012 as the second respondent was not interested to live together, it is difficult to believe that there is still a demand for dowry on 30-4-2012 coupled with criminal intimidation. The allegations are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and the time of the incident. We had called for the records and have gone through the same. The materials before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore are not sufficient to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused appellants have committed the offence under the charged sections. The Additional Sessions Court and the High Court missed these crucial points while considering the petition filed by the appellants under section 397 and section 482 of the Cr.PC respectively. The veiled object behind the lame prosecution is apparently to harass the appellants. We are, hence, of the view that the impugned prosecution is wholly unfounded.” 13. Further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shakson Belthissor vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 14 SCC 466 and relevant para reproduced as under :- “14. The scope and power of quashing a first information report and charge-sheet under section 482 of the CrPC is well settled. The said power is exercised by the court to prevent abuse of the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge-sheet filed by the police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The said power is exercised by the court to prevent abuse of the process of law and court but such a power could be exercised only when the complaint filed by the complainant or the charge-sheet filed by the police did not disclose any offence or when the said complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. A number of decisions have been rendered by this Court on the aforesaid issue wherein the law relating to quashing of a complaint has been succinctly laid down. 15. 5.......In Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 , it was held that the Magistrate while issuing process against the accused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations made in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused. It was held that the order of Magistrate for issuing process against the accused could be quashed under the following circumstances: (SCC p. 741, para 5) “(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.” 16. In Drugs Inspector vs. Dr. B. K. Krishna, 1981 (2) SCC 454 it was held by this Court that (SCC p 455, para 5) “5. In Drugs Inspector vs. Dr. B. K. Krishna, 1981 (2) SCC 454 it was held by this Court that (SCC p 455, para 5) “5. In a quashing proceeding, the High Court has to see whether the allegations made in the complaint petition, if proved, make out a prima facie offence and that the accused has prima facie committed the offence.” In the said decision this Court refused the prayer for quashing of the complaint on the ground that there were sufficient allegations in the complaint to make out a case that the accused persons were responsible for the management and conduct of the firm and, therefore, the extent of their liability could be and should be established during trial. 17. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi [ 1983 (1) SCC 1 ] it was held that when on the allegation made in the complaint, a clear case was made out against all the respondents (accused persons), the High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not disclose any offence. 18. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra), this Court observed as follows in para 8: (SCC p.5) “8. Another important consideration which is to be kept in mind is as to when the High Court acting under the provisions of section 482 should exercise the inherent power insofar as quashing of criminal proceedings are concerned. This matter was gone into in greater detail in Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 where the scope of sections 202 and 204 of the present Code was considered and while laying down the guidelines and the grounds on which proceedings could be quashed this Court observed as follows: [SCC para 5, p. 741 : SCC (Cri) pp. 511-12] ‘5.Thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside : (1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence, which is alleged against the accused; (2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings." 19. “6. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, a question came up for consideration as to whether quashing of the FIR filed against the respondent Bhajan Lal for the offences under section 161 and 165 Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was proper and legal. Reversing the order passed by the High Court, this Court explained the circumstances under which such power could be exercised. Apart from reiterating the earlier norms laid down by this Court, it was further explained that such power could be exercised where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” 20. The Court observed as follows in para 102 : (Bhajan Lal Case, SCC pp.378-79) “102. The Court observed as follows in para 102 : (Bhajan Lal Case, SCC pp.378-79) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 21. However, in paragraph 108 of the said judgment, this Court in Bhajan Lal case referred to and relied upon it earlier judgment in Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar; AIR SC 877 wherein it has been held as under : “16......It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, it otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant.” Thus, in such circumstances, the issue of malafice becomes irrelevant. 22. The above decision was followed by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others [ 1998 (5) SCC 749 ]. In paragraph 28 of the said judgment this Court held thus (SCC p. 760, para 28) : “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 24. This Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 , at page 747 has observed as under : (SCC para 12) “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692 State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995)6 SCC 194 , Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591 , State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996)8 SCC 164 , Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi (1999)3 SCC 259 , Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269 , Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 , M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 . The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 25. This Court has recently in R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and others, (2009) 1 SCC 516 , observed as follows : (SCC p.523, para 15-16) “15. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” 25. This Court has recently in R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and others, (2009) 1 SCC 516 , observed as follows : (SCC p.523, para 15-16) “15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. 16. It is furthermore well known that no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.” The same view has been taken by this Court in Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Anr. vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2991 of 2007; and V. V. S. Rama Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 1529 of 2007. 26. vs. Peddi Ravindra Babu & Anr., SLP (Crl.) No. 2991 of 2007; and V. V. S. Rama Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 1529 of 2007. 26. It was fairly agreed at bar that the aforesaid FIR was filed by Respondent No. 2 with the intention of making out a prima facie case of offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet, which was filed by the police was under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. As to whether or not in the FIR filed and in the charge-sheet a case of section 498-A Indian Penal Code is made out or not is an issue, which is required to be answered in this appeal. 27. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows : “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 willful 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 meet such demand”. In the light of the aforesaid language used in the section, the provision would be applicable only to such a case where the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects the said woman to cruelty. When the ingredients of the aforesaid section are present in a particular case, in that event the person concerned against whom the offence is alleged would be tried in accordance with law in a trial instituted against him and if found guilty the accused would be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 14. 14. Further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010)7 SCC 667 and relevant para reproduced as under :- “14. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised : (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A Indian Penal Code 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. 37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. 15. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. 15. Now in the aforesaid legal back ground, it is to be seen that whether from the FIR or the charge-sheet, prima facie against the applicant an offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is made out or not. In the present case, there is no averment regarding demand of dowry, therefore, this case does not come under the purview of Explanation (b) of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. So far applicability of Explanation (b) of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is concerned to constitute the offence in the meaning of the expression “cruelty”, the conduct of the applicant must be of such a nature as to cause the respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). On examination of the facts of the present case, particularly the FIR and the charge-sheet in the aforesaid back ground, it is found that there is no such allegation gather in the FIR or in the charge-sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation (a) of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under aforesaid provision are not at all mentioned in the FIR or in the charge-sheet and in the absence thereof no case is made out. In other words the provision of explanations defined “cruelty” as found in the section 498-A is clearly not attracted in the present case. In the present case there is a clear cut averment in the FIR and the charge-sheet that since 2008 the respondent No. 2 was residing separately in her parental house with her children and there is no any explanation with regard to non-reporting the matter to the police in the month of October, 2008 when allegedly the first incident of quarrel was taken place. This circumstance shows that the incident was not of such a nature which could be considered actionable or of such a nature as the same may likely to drive the respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). So far the incident of 12-4-2010 is concerned merely using abusive words of verbal threatening to kill her also not considered the conduct of such a nature as required under the explanation (a) of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. It is also clear that it is not a case of persistent abusing or threatening as the applicant resides at Saudi Arabia and comes after interval of 6 months for few days. 16. So far communication of SMS between the applicant and the respondent No. 2 are concerned they are not part of the charge-sheet and they are not documents of such a nature which can be categorized as unimpeachable documents, therefore in this proceeding they cannot be considered 17. It also appears from the facts of the case that the FIR was lodged on 16-4-2010 and there is no any explanation about delay of lodging the FIR. No single word has been mentioned with regard to any explanation of the delay and it was lodged after starting the proceeding of the case before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case filed by the applicant in the nature of habeas corpus with a view to meet the respondent No. 2 and their children. Therefore, it can also be inferred in this case that the respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR as a counter blast of the proceeding started by the applicant and to make efforts to resolve the dispute as the respondent No. 2 was not inclined to go back with the applicant or to prevent custody of their children to the applicant. 18. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that neither in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet there is any ingredients of section 498-A of Indian Penal Code which could prima facie constitute a case of cruelty as defined in that section and it also prima facie appears that the respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR as a counter blast to restrain the applicant to take any steps for custody of children or to insist the respondent No. 2 to rejoin his company. In such circumstances, it will be deemed that the criminal proceeding has been started against the applicant maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 19. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and also considered the fact that the decree of divorce has been passed between the applicant and the respondent No. 2, therefore it is a fit case to quash the FIR and the charge-sheet by invoking the power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are quashed. With a hope and trust that sooner or later good sense will prevail as both the parties are educated and engaged in services of humanity, will adhere on a path of a peace and happiness looking to the future of their children resolving their disputes like a civilized and cultured human being. This petition is disposed of accordingly.