Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 154 (MP)

Ruchi Gupta v. State of M. P.

2019-02-19

SHEEL NAGU

body2019
ORDER 1. Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC are invoked to assail the FIR and the charge-sheet alleging offence punishable u/s. 498A, 34 of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, Gwalior, vide Crime No. 150/2018 which later matured into Criminal Misc. Case No. 6011/2018 pending adjudication before the JMFC, Gwalior. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners who are both sisters-in-law (nanad) have primarily raised two grounds in support of challenge to the impugned prosecution which are as follows: 1. The JMFC, Gwalior has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the impugned prosecution as the offence was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said trial Court at Gwalior. 2. That no offence punishable under section 498A of IPC is made out from the bare reading of the prosecution story. 3. Petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 are residing at Bengaluru since their marriage from 2007 and 2011, respectively and thus have been falsely implicated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the recent decision of coordinate Bench of this Court rendered on 1.3.2017 in MCRC No. 10156/2016 Smt. Anuradha Saxena and others v. State of M. P. and another. While counsel for the victim has relied upon the judgments rendered by the apex Court in Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 673 (see para 7) and in abraham Ajith and others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another reported in 2004 SCC (Cri.) 2134. 4. Taking up the first ground of territorial jurisdiction, the bare reading of FIR discloses that the marriage took place on 22.1.2017 between the victim and co-accused Ashish Gupta at Jaipur. Prior to the marriage, during the proceeding which took place on 6/7.11.2016 for fixing up the marriage, demand of dowry was made by the co-accused husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim. A large amount of cash and materials were gifted at marriage as dowry. After marriage, on the insistence of husband, the father of victim bore the expenses of foreign trip undertaken to celebrate honeymoon. After returning from abroad, husband and in-laws started insisting the victim to ask her father to buy a plot at Jaipur. A large amount of cash and materials were gifted at marriage as dowry. After marriage, on the insistence of husband, the father of victim bore the expenses of foreign trip undertaken to celebrate honeymoon. After returning from abroad, husband and in-laws started insisting the victim to ask her father to buy a plot at Jaipur. When said demand was not met, the victim as alleged in FIR was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and was prevented from going out of her matrimonial home. On 2.6.2018 and 23.9.2017, the parents of the victim visited the matrimonial home, when it is alleged that besides the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim, the petitioners started instigating the co-accused husband to insist for fulfillment of dowry demand. It is further alleged in the FIR that petitioners further instigated the husband co-accused to teach a lesson to the victim who should be driven out of the matrimonial home. It is further alleged that when further insistence of dowry demand was made by the husband to father of the victim on the condition that if the demand is not fulfilled then victim would be driven out of her matrimonial home, the father of victim gave rupees five lacs to the husband. It is further alleged that on 3.1.2018 co-accused mother-in-law physically assaulted the victim. It is also alleged that since January, 2018, the victim alongwith her husband started staying away from the house of father-in-law and mother-in-law, but the behavior of husband co-accused did not change for the better. The expenses of rent of accommodation used by the victim and her husband was incurred by the victim from her limited personal resources. The co-accused husband further failed to bear the burden of domestic expenses in the rented accommodation. The victim continued to be subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the husband. On 11.9.2018, the co-accused father-in-law told the father of victim that co-accused husband does not want to cohabit with the victim since when the victim is staying away at her parental home. 5. The victim continued to be subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the husband. On 11.9.2018, the co-accused father-in-law told the father of victim that co-accused husband does not want to cohabit with the victim since when the victim is staying away at her parental home. 5. From bare reading of the aforesaid allegations, it is evident that part of the offence which is of a continuous nature based on persistent and continuous spate of cruelty of physical and mental nature extended to the victim right from January, 2017 till the lodging of the FIR, has taken place even at Gwalior where the parental house of victim is situated and therefore, in terms of the provisions of sections 177 and 178 of CrPC, the police and trial Court at Gwalior are vested with the territorial jurisdiction to investigate and try the impugned offence. 6. Accordingly, the first ground of territorial jurisdiction raised by the petitioners is of no avail. 7. Coming to the other ground, it is seen that both the petitioners are sisters-in-law (nanad) of the victim, against whom certain allegations (supra) have been made in the FIR and in the statement of PW recorded u/s. 161 of CrPC, but the same are conspicuously lacking in specificity and intensity to qualify to fall within the definition of cruelty contemplated u/s. 498A of IPC. Cruelty has been defined in the explanation clause u/s. 498A of IPC. For ready reference and convenience, the entire Sec. 498A of IPC is reproduced below: 498A. 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. 8. 8. The acts constituting cruelty should be of willful nature which are likely to drive the woman/victim to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (physical or mental) of the victim or should be of the character of harassment extended with a view to coerce the victim or any person related to her to satisfy unlawful demand of property or valuable security or on account of failure by the victim or any person related to her to meet such unlawful demand. 9. The ambit, scope and sweep of section 498A of IPC has been reiterated by the apex Court in several cases, extracts of some such decisions are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience: Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 : 18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh v. State of Tamilnadu, (2005) 3 SCC 507 had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under sections 498 A, 406 and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister- in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 : 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. 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 fibre 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 fibre, 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. 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. 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. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. 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. 38. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society. 10. When the allegations made against the petitioners are tested on the anvil of aforesaid statutory provision and its interpretation, it is seen that omnibus general and non-specific allegations are made against the petitioners who are sisters-in-law (nanad) of the victim. 10. When the allegations made against the petitioners are tested on the anvil of aforesaid statutory provision and its interpretation, it is seen that omnibus general and non-specific allegations are made against the petitioners who are sisters-in-law (nanad) of the victim. FIR or the statements recorded u/s. 161 of CrPC, do not disclose any overt act attributed to the petitioners of such nature and intensity as would drive the victim to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life. The petitioners are alleged to have instigated the husband and mother-in-law and father-in-law in insisting for dowry demand and for driving the petitioner out of the matrimonial home. 11. A mere insistence by the sisters-in-law (nanad) cannot by itself lead to cruelty of such intense nature that it may satisfy the requirements of the definition of cruelty u/s. 498A of IPC. Besides the aforesaid allegations, there is allegation of mere presence of petitioners at the time when the co-accused husband and his parents came to the parental house of the victim for fixing up the marriage in November, 2016. 12. Moreso, the petitioners are said to be married and since their marriage are said to be residing at Bengaluru since 2007 and 2011, which fact is not denied by the victim. Admittedly, the petitioners must be visiting their parental house (matrimonial home of the victim) but there is nothing on record to reveal that such visits were for a long period of time. In ordinary course of things, a woman after getting married predominantly stays at her matrimonial home and unless evidence to the contrary is established, which is not the case in herein, it can safely be presumed that a married woman's place of ordinary residence is her matrimonial home. 13. Consequently, the ground on merits raised by the petitioners appeals to this Court and therefore, present petition deserves to succeed. 14. Consequently, this Court finds that no prima facie case against both the petitioners is made out qua offence punishable u/s.498A of IPC. 15. However, the offence of section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act alleged against the petitioners is left untouched as no argument in that regard is extended by the counsel for the petitioners. 16. Consequently, present petition is allowed, the FIR and the charge sheet bearing Crime No. 150/2018 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, Gwalior and the consequential Misc. 15. However, the offence of section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act alleged against the petitioners is left untouched as no argument in that regard is extended by the counsel for the petitioners. 16. Consequently, present petition is allowed, the FIR and the charge sheet bearing Crime No. 150/2018 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, Gwalior and the consequential Misc. Criminal Case No. 6011/18 before the JMFC, Gwalior, so far as it relates to offence punishable u/s. 498A of IPC stand quashed. No order as to cost.