Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 733 (MP)

Uma Shankar v. State of M. P.

2019-10-17

ANJULI PALO

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners who are father-in-law; mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No. 2 for quashment of the Criminal Case No. 268/2019 pending before learned JMFC, Sagar for offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Crime No. 34/2018 registered at police station - Mahila Thana, Sagar. 2. It is not disputed that, respondent No. 2 married with Vivek who is son of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR against all the petitioners including her husband. 3. The petitioners are facing trial under sections 498A and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 against them at Mahila Thana, Sagar alleging that her marriage was solemnised with Vivek under the Scheme of "Mukhyamantri Kanyadaan Yojna". Thereafter her husband started harassing her and other in-laws also demanded Rs. 2 Lacs as dowry. They ousted her from their house and her husband refused to live with her. Her husband Vivek wanted to get married with another girl. Hence, police registered offences punishable under sections 498-A and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. 4. The petitioners are claiming that the respondent No. 2 belongs to different caste. After solemnisation of the marriage, she was residing with her husband at Ratlam. She made false allegations against them which are indicated in the complaints dated 7.12.2018 and 12.12.2018 lodged by her to the Superintendent of Police, Sagar. Since, July 2018 she has been residing with her parents. Therefore, her husband filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Sagar. After receiving notice, the respondent No. 2 made application for interim maintenance. Thereafter she lodged the FIR at Mahila Thana, Sagar. It is prayed by the petitioners that criminal case No. 268/2019 pending before learned JMFC, Sagar be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners. After receiving notice, the respondent No. 2 made application for interim maintenance. Thereafter she lodged the FIR at Mahila Thana, Sagar. It is prayed by the petitioners that criminal case No. 268/2019 pending before learned JMFC, Sagar be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners. They contended that, there are specific allegations against all the petitioners in the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is urged against the petitioners that they have not provided food to the respondent No. 2 and used to beat her. They took the ornaments and clothes of the respondent No. 2. Hence, learned Panel Lawyer and learned counsel for the responded No. 2 prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 it has been held by the apex Court that "power under section 482 of the CrPC to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 7. In the case at hand, at the time of filing of the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against respondent No. 2, she was residing along with her parents separately from the petitioners. It is also noteworthy that earlier she was living with her husband at Ratlam separately from the petitioners. Her close relatives stated mainly against her husband that he treated respondent No. 2 in cruel manner and did not provide food to her and did not use to come home in proper time. He left respondent No. 2 with her parents at Sagar. At that point of time, the respondent No. 2 did not lodge any report against the petitioners and her husband. 8. In a Criminal Appeal Nos. 594 to 599 of 2019 (Rashmi Chopra v. State of U.P. and other connected matters) filed by Rashmi Chopra, Anita Gandhi, Nayan Chopra, Amit Chopra, Kuldeep Gandhi and Rajesh Chopra, the Supreme Court deeply expressed its concern and held that the power under section 482 of the CrPC is exercised by the High Court only in exceptional circumstances when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused. The test applied by the Supreme Court for interference at the initial stage of a prosecution is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish a case. The Supreme Court also referring the case of Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar and others (2017) 16 SCC 772 ; Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta (2015) 3 SCC 424 and K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 held that the relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific allegations, instances of their involvement in the crime, are made out. [See also: Hansraj v. State of Punjab, (2005) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash v. State of UP, (2014) 16 SCC 551 . 9. In the present case, there is no specific allegations with regard to any of the petitioners except common general allegation against all the petitioners, i.e. they started harassing the respondent No. 2 for their demand of dowry of Rs. 2 Lacs. It is pertinent to mention here that the marriage was solemnised under the scheme of 'Mukhyamantri Kanyadaan Yojna' without any demand of dowry. In such circumstances, prima facie, it appears that after filing the petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband of the respondent No. 2, she lodged false FIR against the present petitioners as a counter blast. Hence, this Court does not hesitate to interfere in this matter to secure the ends of justice. In the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and K. Subba Rao and others v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 Hon'ble the apex Court laid down the principles that the Court should be careful in proceeding against the relatives of the husband. They should not be roped in on the basis of bald allegations. 10. In the decision of Rashmi Chopra (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraphs 20 and 21 has held as follows : "20. After referring to several other cases, this Court concluded and made following observations in paragraph 41: "41. Inherent power given to the High Court under section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. Inherent power given to the High Court under section 482 CrPC is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment…." 21. The criminal prosecution can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed. This Court has observed that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment. If High Court finds that proceedings deserve to be quashed in parameters as laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, High Court shall not hesitate in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings." 11. In view of the preceding analysis and in the light of the ratio laid down in the above decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this petition is allowed. The proceeding in Criminal Case No. 268/2019 in connection with Crime No. 34/2018 pending before learned JMFC, Sagar for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed only in respect of the present petitioners. It is made clear that this order quashing the criminal proceeding in respect of the petitioners, shall have no bearing on the criminal proceeding pending against other accused person(s).