Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 257 (MP)

Manish Raghuvanshi v. State of M. P.

2019-03-26

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been preferred by the applicants invoking the inherent powers of this Court, for quashing the FIR dated 24.2.2018 registered by Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha, in Crime No. 33/2018 alleging offences punishable u/Ss. 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings initiated against applicants No. 1 to 3, who are husband, brother-in-law (Jeth) and mother-in-law, respectively of the victim/respondent No.2. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that the applicant No.1 has married with the non-applicant No. 2 on 10.6.2003 at Guna. After the marriage, the applicant No.1 and complainant started residing at Royal City, Tahsil Sironj, District Vidisha, whereas the applicants No. 2 and 3 were residing separately in main market, Tahsil Lateri, District Vidisha. It is alleged by the complainant that after the marriae, husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law started demanding dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- whereas as per complainant, her father had given jewelry of approximately Rs. 15,00,000/-. The applicant No.1 used to torture the complainant. It is further mentioned in the complaint that from the wedlock of applicant No.1 and complainant, two children were born, namely, Lakshita and Daksh. It is alleged by the complainant that on 18.2.2018, the complainant lodged the report at Police Station, Guna regarding demand of dowry, however the same was transferred to Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha and thereafter the FIR has been registered as aforesaid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that the allegations made in the FIR are not correct and the applicants have been falsely implicated, therefore, the registration of the FIR is itself bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law. The applicants No. 2 and 3 are residing separately from the applicant No. 1 in a different Tahsil, therefore, there is no possibility of the applicants No. 2 and 3 having indulged in day-to-day affairs of applicant No. 1 and complainant. The allegations made against the applicants No. 2 and 3 are vague, non-specific and therefore, continuance of a case under section 498-A of IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is totally illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law. The allegations made against the applicants No. 2 and 3 are vague, non-specific and therefore, continuance of a case under section 498-A of IPC read with sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is totally illegal and amounts to abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the applicant No. 1 and the complainant were having good relation and they have taken care of their children, who are studying in convent school. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that complainant herself has gone with one Manish Malviya, resident of Harda as she was having certain intimacy with him. The brother of the complainant lodged the missing report No. 12/2018 at Police Station, Guna wherein it is clearly mentioned that the complainant had gone at her own along with two children with said Manish Malviya. Even as per the report and the message, she was seen with Manish Malviya, resident of Harda, on 19.2.2018 along with two children. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant is roaming with some other person and since she was caught, a false case has been registered against the applicants for demanding dowry. It is also submitted that there is no specific allegation or detail regarding the date when the alleged demand was made and cruel treatment was done with her. Rather, the applicants purchased some properties in the name of complainant at two-three occasions. If the intention of the applicant was at all to harass the complainant, then certainly he would not have purchased the properties in the name of the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant/respondent No. 2 is trying to falsely implicate the present applicants as she wants to remain with some other person and the alleged report made by the complainant is nothing but an attempt to save her prestige since she was caught by the family members with her paramour. On these premises, learned counsel for the applicants prayed for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the applicants. Leaned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. [2017(3) MPLJ (Cri) 178], wherein the Hon'ble apex Court, dealing with the situation in which false reports are being filed under section 498A of IPC, has issued detailed guidelines to deal with the cases under section 498A of IPC. 4. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted the FIR reveals harassment and demand made to the prosecutrix, therefore, it is not a fit case for quashment of the FIR. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Section 498A of IPC reads as under : "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 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 to meet such demand." A bare perusal of the above provision, especially the explanation of the term cruelty elicits that the same is divided into two categories. The first is willful conduct of such nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger of life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman whereas the second category is harassment with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 7. On the anvil of the aforesaid provision, if the FIR lodged by the complainant is seen, it is evident that there is general and omnibus allegation against the applicant No. 1-husband and his family members and are not sufficient to compel them to face the ordeal of trial. 7. On the anvil of the aforesaid provision, if the FIR lodged by the complainant is seen, it is evident that there is general and omnibus allegation against the applicant No. 1-husband and his family members and are not sufficient to compel them to face the ordeal of trial. For the allegation of cruelty to qualify the test of section 498A, it is necessary that cruelty alleged is of such nature which is likely to drive the prosecutrix to commit suicide or to cause grave danger of her life, limb or health (mental or physical) or such harassment is meted out to the prosecutrix with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The allegations as reflected in the FIR do not, in the considered opinion of this Court, satisfy the stringent definition of cruelty contained in Explanation (a) to section 498 A of IPC. 8. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the applicant No.2 (Jeth) and applicant No.3 (mother-in-law) are residing separately from the applicant No.1 in a different Tahsil. In one of the recent decisions in the case of K.Subba Rao and ors. v. The State of Telangana and ors. in Cr.A. No. 1045/18 [Published in AIR 2018 SC 4009 ] (decided on 21.8.2018), Division Bench of the Hon'ble apex Court while quashing the prosecution of maternal uncle of the husband has cautioned the Court to be careful in proceedings against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. Relevant paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience : "5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and anr. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (2014) 16 SCC 551 . 6. The counsel for the second respondent submitted that certain documents belonging to the second respondent were seized from the appellants which would show their active involvement in the kidnapping of her child. On an overall consideration of the contents of the charge sheet, supplementary charge sheet and the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 2, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case has not been made out against the Appellants for proceeding against them under sections 498 A, 120 B, 420 and 365 IPC. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the proceedings qua the appellants in Crime No. 477 of 2015, dated 20.12.2015 under sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC registered at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad before the Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad, Commissionerate. In view of above and the recent decision of apex Court in the case of K.Subba Rao (supra), the decision of the apex Court in the case of Taramani Prakash (supra), cited by the prosecution, is of no avail to the victim." 9. In the case in hand, one IA No. 8939/2018 has been filed by the applicants for taking document on record. It is submitted in the application that during the pendency of this petition, the applicants submitted an application to DIG, Bhopal praying for enquiry into the matter with regard to false implication of the present applicants. On enquiry, it has come on record that the complainant does not want to live with her husband and therefore false case has been registered against the applicants so that the complainant may live with her paramour. In support of the same, copies of the report and statements have been filed by the applicants, which go to show that the complainant was residing in Harda with one Manish Malviya along with her children and she does not want to live with the applicant No.1. In support of the same, copies of the report and statements have been filed by the applicants, which go to show that the complainant was residing in Harda with one Manish Malviya along with her children and she does not want to live with the applicant No.1. The investigation report submitted by SDO (P) Lateri, District Vidisha further reveals that the complainant in Harda Court had submitted an affidavit in favour of Manish Malviya and requested not to take any action against Manish Malviya. One more unique feature in the case is that in the statement of Harshit Raghuvanshi, brother of the complainant, recorded by the concerning police, he himself has stated that her sister (complainant) is residing with Manish Malviya who has eloped her and he requested for taking action against Manish Malviya. 10. Thus, the facts and circumstances narrated above goes to indicate that the prosecution launched against the applicants is an abuse of the process of law and therefore, in terms of the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and ors. v. Bhajanlal and ors. [ 1992 (1) SCC 335 ], this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR bearing crime No. 33/2018 registered at Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha alleging offences punishable u/S. 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential criminal proceedings against the present applicants. 11. Resultantly, the petition filed under section 482 of CrPC is hereby allowed and the FIR dated 24.2.2018 bearing crime No. 33/2018 registered at Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha alleging offences punishable under sections 498A, 506, 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential criminal proceedings against the present applicants are hereby quashed.