Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 321 (MP)

Kusum Pandya v. State of M. P.

2024-04-02

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2024
ORDER 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.Cr.C.No.6245/2022, as both these cases have arisen out of the same Crime No.418/2021, registered at Police Station-Tilak Nagar, Indore (M.P.). 2. These Miscellaneous Criminal Cases have been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing the First Information Report lodged at Crime No. 418/2021 at Police Station-Tilak Nagar, Indore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC as also for quashing the entire consequential criminal proceedings. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners (in M.Cr.C.No.6309/2022) are the parents of Kunal Pandya, the husband of the respondent No.2/complainant-Shiwani Pandya; whereas the petitioners (in M.Cr.C.No.6245/2022) are the elder sisters of Kunal Pandya. 4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the respondent No.2 was solemnized with Kunal Pandya on 28.2.2019, and they also have a daughter out of this wedlock, aged around one year and eight months. According to the complainant, after the marriage, the petitioners and her husband started to harass her and used to demand a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs and 40 tola gold ornaments. In this regard, her parents also intervened and convinced the complainant that things would get right in the course of time however, after the birth of her daughter on 5.2.2020, in her parents house, when she went back to her matrimonial house, she was again harassed by the petitioners, and on 4.8.2021, she was also assaulted by them. However, again after her parents convinced her that things would get right, she started residing separately with her husband. However, her husband also assaulted her on 4.11.2021, and thereafter, she went back home and subsequently lodged the report on 4.11.2021. 5. Shri Maqbool Ahmad Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners (in M.Cr.C.No.6309/2022) are the old aged parents of the husband of the respondent No.2/wife being aged 62 and 71 years respectively at the time of lodging of the FIR on 4.11.2020. Whereas the petitioners (in M.Cr.C.No.6245/2022) are the elder sisters of the husband of the respondent No.2, who are also residing with their families in Bangalore(Karnataka) and Vadodara (Gujarat) respectively, as both of them have already married and are also in service. Whereas the petitioners (in M.Cr.C.No.6245/2022) are the elder sisters of the husband of the respondent No.2, who are also residing with their families in Bangalore(Karnataka) and Vadodara (Gujarat) respectively, as both of them have already married and are also in service. Counsel has further submitted that even as per their Aadhar Cards, which are filed along with the charge sheet, they are the permanent residence of Bangalore (Karnataka) and Vadodara (Gujarat) respectively. It is also submitted that admittedly, the respondent No.2 had started separately residing with her husband due the family dispute and thereafter, she has also alleged that her husband has harassed her. It is further submitted that only omnibus allegations have been leveled against them and they have been falsely implicated only because they happen to be the parents and sisters of the husband of the complainant. 6. In support of his submissions, Shri Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others reported as (2022) 6 SCC 599 as also the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Daksha w/o Deepak Mehta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another passed in M.Cr.C. No.17379/2022 decided on 22.2.2023 in which case also, the petitioners, who were the old aged parents-in-laws of the complainant wife, were discharged from the offence. 7. On the other hand, Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/wife has submitted that no case for interference is made out, as specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the FIR as also in the statements made by the witnesses, and the sisters of the husband of the complainant are also residing in Indore only, which is also apparent from the video clip which was captured on the date of the incident i.e. on 4.11.2021, in which, the petitioner No.2 Keshni Pandya in M.Cr.C.No.6245/2022 is clearly visible as she was apparently present in her parents’ house. It is also submitted that so far s the Aadhar Card of Keshni Pandya, the petitioner No.2 (in M.Cr.C. No.6245/2022) is concerned, it clearly reveals that her address is that of Indore only. 8. It is also submitted that so far s the Aadhar Card of Keshni Pandya, the petitioner No.2 (in M.Cr.C. No.6245/2022) is concerned, it clearly reveals that her address is that of Indore only. 8. In support of his submissions, Shri Mehta, counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Saranya v. Bharathi and another rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 873/2021; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another reported as AIR onLine 2012 SC 668; State of West Bengal v. Narayan K. Patodia, as also the decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Dheeraj Kumar Gera v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another {M.Cr.C. No.4715/2023 dated 14.12.2023}; Deepak Garg vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another {M.Cr.C. No.33397/2021 dated 19.1.2023} and Chhogalal Joshi and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another {M.Cr.C.No.20939/2023 dated 7.12.2023}. 9. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the notice under section 41(A) issued to the petitioner No.2 Keshni Pandya (in M.Cr.C. No.6245/2022) has been served at her Vadodara address, and thus, it is apparent that she is a resident of Gujarat only, and was visiting with her parents on the date of incident. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 11. From the perusal of the record, this Court finds that so far as the FIR is concerned, it has been lodged on 27.11.2021, in respect of the offence, which was committed between 5.6.2019 to 27.11.2021. Thus, apparently the FIR has been lodged after a delay of around two years from 5.6.2019; although the immediate cause is shown to be on 27.11.2021. It is also found that despite the allegations of bringing inadequate dowry made against her by her in-laws, the complainant has continued to reside with them, and subsequently, she also resided separately from her in-laws with her husband in a rented flat where her husband assaulted her on 4.11.2021. Admittedly, she did not lodge any complaint against her husband on 4.11.2021 also, and it is alleged that when she went back to her parents’ house where also her husband came there and assaulted her. It is also an admitted fact that there is no MLC on record. Admittedly, she did not lodge any complaint against her husband on 4.11.2021 also, and it is alleged that when she went back to her parents’ house where also her husband came there and assaulted her. It is also an admitted fact that there is no MLC on record. It is also found that although, as per the memo dated 27.11.2021, given by the complainant, she has admitted that she was assaulted on 4.11.2021 but, as she has not suffered any injuries hence, she does not wish to get herself medical examination. 12. It is also found that the notices under section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. were issued to the sister-in-law of the complainant/petitioner No.1-Kuntal Pandya (in M.Cr.C.No.6245/2022) at her Tilak Nagar, Indore address. However, in her Aadhar card, her address is stated to be at Vimanapura, Bangaluru (Karnataka). Whereas the petitioner No.2 Keshni Pandya has been served the notice under section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. at her Vadodara address in Gujarat. In such circumstances, it is apparent that both these petitioners are residing in Karnataka and Gujarat respectively. It is also an admitted fact that both these petitioners are married and are having their own separate families. 13. It is also found that against the petitioners No.1 & 2 (in M.Cr.C.No.6309/2022), who are the in-laws of the complainant, it is alleged that on 4.8.2021, the complainant was assaulted by them for bringing inadequate dowry but, but at that time also she did not lodge any complaint against them. Thus, from a bare perusal of the FIR, as also the statement of the complainant, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that only omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, who are the close family members of the husband of the complainant. 14. So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others (supra), in which, it has dealt with the tendency of the wife to arraign all the family members of the husband as accused persons. Relevant para 17 of the same reads as under :-- “17. 14. So far as the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & others (supra), in which, it has dealt with the tendency of the wife to arraign all the family members of the husband as accused persons. Relevant para 17 of the same reads as under :-- “17. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. So far as the decisions cited by the counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant are concerned, the same are distinguishable and are of no help to her. 16. In view of the same, this Court finds that the present case also appears to be a case where the family members of the husband of the complainant have been arraigned for their name’s sake only, to wreck personal vengeance against them. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, to drag them further in the trial Court would be a misuse of the process of the Court. 17. Resultantly, the petitions stands allowed and the FIR registered against the petitioners at Crime No. 418/2019 at Police Station 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the subsequent proceedings so far as it relates to the petitioners, are hereby quashed. 18. Accordingly, both the Misc. Criminal Cases stand allowed.