Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 317 (HP)

Soma Devi v. State of H. P.

2023-05-29

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 33 of 2017, dated 15.2.2017, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom i.e. Criminal Case No. 320 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. 2. Respondent No.2 was married to petitioner No.4 on 28.9.2014. Their relationship got estranged and respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home in the year 2016. On 15.2.2017, on the complaint of respondent No.2, FIR No. 33 was registered against all the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P. On completion of investigation, investigating agency submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the court of competent jurisdiction. The trial is pending against the petitioners. 3. On 31.12.2019 respondent No.2 and petitioner filed an application before the learned Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned Family Court recorded the statement of the parties on the day of first motion i.e. 31.12.2019. Respondent No.2 stated before the learned Family Court that her relationship with petitioner No.4 had become strained and since 2016, they were residing separately. She expressed her inability to live with petitioner No.4 under one roof. Respondent No.2 also categorically stated that she had already received her entire “Stridhan”. On second motion before the learned Family Court, respondent No.2 again made a statement to similar effect. It was also stated that she had no subsisting claim against petitioner No.4. Learned Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala passed the decree of divorce on mutual consent and the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.4 was dissolved vide decree dated 29.8.2020. 4. In the interregnum, on 17.1.2022, another compromise deed had also been recorded between the petitioners and respondent No.2 in which it was clearly mentioned that after filing of petition for divorce on mutual basis, her matrimonial relation with petitioner No.4 had come to an end. The parties had no ill-will remaining between themselves. Respondent No.2 wanted to marry some other person and the pendency of FIR No. 33 of 2017 could have effect on her new married life. The parties had no ill-will remaining between themselves. Respondent No.2 wanted to marry some other person and the pendency of FIR No. 33 of 2017 could have effect on her new married life. On such basis, respondent No.2 had expressed her willingness to withdraw the prosecution against petitioners. 5. Petitioners have contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings against them is nothing but abuse of process of Court. The allegations levelled against petitioners by respondent No.2 in FIR No. 33 of 2017 were totally baseless. Even after completion of investigation, no legal evidence could be collected by the investigating agency against petitioners. It is further contended that respondent No.2 resiled from her promise to withdraw the prosecution against petitioners with ulterior motive. She intends to extract more money from petitioners. It is further alleged by petitioners that respondent No.2 was interested to marry a person of her choice and for such reason she was not happy to reside with petitioner No.4. The decree of divorce was passed on 29.8.2020 and immediately thereafter, respondent No.2 married one Anil Kumar on 8.10.2020. She even gave a birth to a female child on 17.12.2020 from the loins of said Anil Kumar. The child was delivered by respondent No.2 within two months from the date of her marriage with Anil Kumar. 6. On the other, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that she was made to sign on blank papers by petitioner No.4 and his counsel and her “Stridhan” was still with the petitioners. It was further contended that petitioner No.4 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs to respondent No.2 besides her “Stridhan”. As regards her statement recorded by learned Family Court, respondent No.2 tendered an explanation that she was induced to make such statement on the promise that she would be paid the money and “Stridhan” afterward once she made a statement regarding receipt of such effects. Respondent No.2 has further alleged that petitioner No.4 and his counsel had misused the blank papers signed by respondent No.2 and fabricated documents i.e. the receipt of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- executed by respondent No.2 on 31.12.2019. On such grounds, respondent No.2 has opposed the claim in the petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. 1,00,000/- executed by respondent No.2 on 31.12.2019. On such grounds, respondent No.2 has opposed the claim in the petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted by the police reveals that the petitioners for the first time had raised allegations of her harassment at the hands of the petitioners for demand of dowry on 15.2.2017. She had alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.4 on 28.9.2014. Petitioner No.4 and his father, petitioner No.2 were residing in ‘Qatar’ ‘Doha’ for work. Petitioner No.4 resided with respondent No.2 only for a period of three months after marriage and during this period, he used to manhandle petitioner under the influence of liquor. Respondent No.2 was also being harassed by her in-laws on the pretext that her parents had not offered special gifts in the marriage to them or their relatives befitting their status. She did not disclose these facts to her parents, whereas, petitioner No.4 continuously pressurized respondent No. 2 to leave the matrimonial house. Her mobile was snatched by petitioners No. 5 and 6 and she was not even allowed to meet her parents. Whenever respondent No.2 used to go to her parents’ house, her sister-in-law would accompany and would also escort her back. On 11.2.2017 in the evening, petitioner No.4 called his mother from ‘Qatar’ and told her that he would return home only when his wife was turned away from the house. He further asked his mother to force respondent No.2 to commit suicide so that he could solemnize second marriage. Thereafter, sisters-in-law of respondent No.2 came in the room of respondent No.2 by breaking open the door. Respondent No.2 was dragged to the lower floor, she was given beatings and was forced to drink 5 – 10 tablets with salt. Respondent No.2 became unconscious and she did not remember what happened thereafter. On 13.2.2017, father of respondent No.2 called sister-in-law of respondent No.2 on phone and respondent No.2 could not stop weeping. Her father got suspicious; he arrived the house of petitioners with Panchayat. The other panchayat was already present there. Respondent No.2 was taken to hospital at Una. Petitioners started pressurizing the father of respondent No.2 on which he called the Superintendent of Police, Una on phone. Her father got suspicious; he arrived the house of petitioners with Panchayat. The other panchayat was already present there. Respondent No.2 was taken to hospital at Una. Petitioners started pressurizing the father of respondent No.2 on which he called the Superintendent of Police, Una on phone. The police reached the hospital and since they were under pressure, respondent No.2 was advised to be taken to house of her parents. It was further complained that her ornaments had been got removed from her person by petitioner No.1. On 15.2.2017, the FIR was registered and respondent No.2 was subjected to medical examination. Simple injuries were found on her person and there was no evident mark on the body. She was discharged on request and was then taken to RPGMC, Tanda. There also respondent No.2 refused to get admitted. 9. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though, this Court is vested with jurisdiction and powers under the aforesaid provisions of law to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but the same has to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court has come across situations with which this Court is confronted in the instant case. The dictum of law as pronounced from time to time is that the High Courts, in appropriate cases, can quash criminal proceedings under Section 498 of the IPC where allegations are vague, general and omnibus. This has been made applicable especially in the cases where the relatives of husband are also sought to be impleaded. In the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it has been observed as under: - “4. There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. The fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested. “Crime in India 2012 Statistics” published by National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762 persons all over India during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, 9.4% more than the year 2011. Nearly a quarter of those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 which depicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their arrest net. Its share is 6% out of the total persons arrested under the crimes committed under Indian Penal Code. It accounts for 4.5% of total crimes committed under different sections of penal code, more than any other crimes excepting theft and hurt. The rate of charge-sheeting in cases under Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the conviction rate is only 15%, which is lowest across all heads. As many as 3,72,706 cases are pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000 are likely to result in acquittal.” 11. In K. Subba Rao and others vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed as under: - “6. 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 & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC” 12. 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 & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC” 12. To similar effect is reiteration of law made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2022)6 SCC 599 . In paras 17 and 18 of above noticed judgment, it has been observed as under:- “17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” 13. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” 13. Reverting to the facts of the case, there is no hesitation to hold that the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against petitioners are general, vague and omnibus in nature. No specific instance with approximate date or time has been alleged save and except the alleged incident on 11.2.2017. On further examination of the material on record, even such allegation is not beyond doubt. Respondent No.2 alongwith her reply has placed on record certain medical prescription slips. Noticeably, there is no MLC suggesting any injury on her person allegedly inflicted on 11.2.2017. The medical record so filed by respondent No.2 pertains to the RPGMC, Tanda w.e.f. 15.2.2017 onwards. It is nowhere suggested from such record that respondent No.2 had received assault as alleged. Rather, the medical prescriptions w.e.f. 22.3.2017 reveal that respondent No.2 had been regularly attended upon at Psychiatric department as out-door patient in RPGMC, Tanda. 14. The incident as reported to the police on 15.2.2017 otherwise also becomes suspicious for the reasons firstly that respondent No.2 herself had admitted in her statement before the learned Family Court that she had been residing separately with her parents since 2016 and secondly, she made no mention of her harassment for dowry or any other purpose in the proceedings for divorce. 15. It is revealed from the receipt Annexure P-9 that respondent No.2 had received Rs.1,00,000/- from petitioner No.4 in lieu of alimony besides the receipt of “Stridhan”. 16. The allegation that the signatures of respondent No.2 were obtained on blank papers by deceit, are totally unsubstantiated and otherwise also do not appear to be credible. Had it been so, respondent No.2 could easily have brought this fact to the notice of the Family Court or any other authority. Thus, the plea so raised by respondent No.2, appears to be an afterthought. 17. The statement of respondent No.2 was recorded by the Family Court on 31.12.2019 in the first instance and on 29.8.2020 at the time of hearing second motion. Respondent No.2 had sufficient time to re-think. Thus, the plea so raised by respondent No.2, appears to be an afterthought. 17. The statement of respondent No.2 was recorded by the Family Court on 31.12.2019 in the first instance and on 29.8.2020 at the time of hearing second motion. Respondent No.2 had sufficient time to re-think. She did not make any complaint to the Family Court against her being under any coercion, threat, misrepresentation or any deceit having been applied on her. 18. The defence of respondent No.2 as stated in the instant petition further appears to be doubtful. Respondent No.2 has not denied the fact that she had delivered a baby after two months of her marriage with Anil Kumar. She has also not rendered any explanation for happening of such event. The facts, thus, clearly suggest that respondent No.2 was interested to marry Anil Kumar and even before dissolution of her marriage with petitioner No.4 in accordance with law, she had maintained relations with said Anil Kumar. 19. The facts and circumstances of the case as detailed above, are sufficient to draw an inference that respondent No.2 is interested to drag the litigation against petitioners just to gain advantage over and above for which she had earlier agreed. Thus, in my considered view, amounts to abuse of process of Court. 20. In light of above discussion, petition is allowed and FIR No. 33 of 2017, dated 15.2.2017, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 323 and 34 of IPC and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom i.e. Criminal Case No. 320 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. are quashed and set-aside. 21. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any.