Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 509 (MP)

Ramdayal Patidar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2024-07-20

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2024
ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,1973, for quashing the First Information Report lodged at Crime No.33/2022, at police Station Neemuch Mahila police station, District-Neemuch for offence under sections 498-A, 323, 506/34 of the IPC, as also for quashing the entire consequential criminal proceedings. 2. The petitioners herein, are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.2/Pooja Patidar, who has lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging demand of dowry and harassment by the petitioners. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the respondent No.2 was solemnized with the petitioners’ No.1 & 2’s son- Dr.Deepesh Patidar on 30.11.2020. Unfortunately, Dr. Deepesh Patidar, the husband of the respondent No.2, passed away on account of heart failure on 7.7.2021, and thereafter, as alleged, the present petitioners started harassing the respondent No.2 for dowry, and have also threatened her of dire consequences if she does not bring Rs.5 Lacs. 4. Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners No.1 & 2 are the old, aged parents of the deceased husband of the respondent No.2; whereas the respondent No.3-Chitra Patidar is the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 and is presently pursuing her M.D. from Indus Medical College, Indore. 5. It is further submitted that the reason for lodging the aforesaid FIR is the property dispute between the parties, as the deceased has left behind certain ancestral property, which has led to the aforesaid dispute. Counsel has also drawn the attention to this Court to a complaint dated 15.6.2022, made by the respondent No.2 to the various officers of the State, including the Inspector General of Police/Dy. Inspector General of Police and the Collector, Ujjain stating that the petitioners are bent upon to deprive the respondent No.2 of her legal rights to claim the property in the name of her husband. Counsel has submitted that there is no reference of any allegation of dowry in the aforesaid complaint. 6. It is also submitted that after the death of the petitioners’ No.1 & 2 only son, there was no occasions for them to demand dowry from his widow. Counsel has submitted that there is no reference of any allegation of dowry in the aforesaid complaint. 6. It is also submitted that after the death of the petitioners’ No.1 & 2 only son, there was no occasions for them to demand dowry from his widow. It is further submitted that otherwise, the respondent No.2 was already married to one Shreeram s/o Jagannath Patidar on 14.5.2015, and without taking divorce from him she has started to reside with the present petitioners’ No. 1 & 2 son -Dr.Deepesh Patidar, as his wife. Thus, the respondent No.2 is also not entitled to claim any benefit from the properties of the son of the petitioners No.1 & 2. 7. Ms. Nupur Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/ the objector, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. It is submitted that when the respondent No.2’s marriage was solemnized with the son of the petitioners No.1 & 2, they were also present in the said marriage, and no objection was ever raised by them in respect of the respondent No.2’s earlier marriage. It is also submitted that that the validity of the marriage of the respondent No.2 is not an issue before this Court and the respondent No.2 has made clear allegations in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed. 8. Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State has also opposed the prayer. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the record. 10. From the record, it is found that the marriage of the complainant /respondent No.2/Pooja Patidar was solemnized with Dr. Deepesh Patidar on 30.11.2020, and according to her, she was harassed by the petitioners regarding dowry, who used to demand Rs.5 Lacs from her. In the FIR, she has not alleged anything against her late husband Dr. Deepesh Patidar, who has already died on 7.7.2021. Thus, the FIR was not lodged when her husband was alive but only on 29.3.2022, and the cause of action is stated to be from 5.12.2020 to 29.3.2022. 11. In the FIR, she has not alleged anything against her late husband Dr. Deepesh Patidar, who has already died on 7.7.2021. Thus, the FIR was not lodged when her husband was alive but only on 29.3.2022, and the cause of action is stated to be from 5.12.2020 to 29.3.2022. 11. It is also found that a property dispute is already going on between the parties as the respondent No. 2/Pooja Patidar had also filed a complainant on 15.6.2022, to various authorities regarding the mutation of the land in the name of her husband by the present petitioners, which isprior to the lodging of the FIR. It is also found that in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2, which was also addressed to the I.G. Ujjain, D.I.G., Ratlam, Collector, Ratlam, S.P. Ratlam and SHO, Police Station-Kalukheda, Ratlam there is absolutely no reference of any harassment regarding dowry against the present petitioners and it was confined only to the property. In such circumstances, the allegations against the present petitioners in the FIR that they have harassed the complainant/respondent No.2 prior to two months from the date of lodging of the FIR dated 29.3.2022, appears an afterthought, It is also found that there is no other material available on record to support the contention of the complainant that she was also assaulted by the petitioners and in her MLC also, she has stated that she has no such injury which requires any MLC. 12. It is also mentioned in the petition that the petitioners No.1 & 2 are the senior citizens and have retired as government servants; whereas, the petitioner No. 3 is pursuing her M.D. from Indus Medical College, Indore, and these facts have not been rebutted by the respondent No.2. In such circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to believe that the petitioners No.1 and 2 whose only son, who was also a doctor by profession, and who has died an untimely death only on 7.7.2021, would demand dowry from his widow, leading her to lodged the FIR on 29.3.2022. 13. In such circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to believe that the petitioners No.1 and 2 whose only son, who was also a doctor by profession, and who has died an untimely death only on 7.7.2021, would demand dowry from his widow, leading her to lodged the FIR on 29.3.2022. 13. So far as the tendency of a wife to falsely implicate her in-laws in a matrimonial dispute is concerned, reference in this regard may be had to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another reported as 2024 SCC online SC 759, whereby the apex Court has held as under :-- “16. That in this way, the Accused persons have ignored the first informant due to their dowry demand and they have even not returned the first informant her stridhan and are threatening that if without fulfilling their demand of dowry, the first informant comes to their house, they will kill her. Thus, by giving this complaint, a request is being made to take immediate action against the accused persons for demanding dowry, giving beatings and threatening me to kill and my stridhan be recovered from the accused persons. It will be so kind of you.” xxxxxx 22. Once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The Court, thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials collected by the investigating agency in the form of charge sheet. There is nothing in the words of section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a charge sheet. 23. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a charge sheet. 23. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 , this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings :-- (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. xxxxxxxx 25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The Court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. xxxxxxxx 30. In the aforesaid context, we should look into the category 7 as indicated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The category 7 as laid reads thus :-- “(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to above should be taken into consideration and applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission canvassed by the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into or considered then why the investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report against the other co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say so, because allegations have been levelled not only against the appellant herein but even against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute. 32. If that be so, then why the police did not deem fit to file chargesheet against the other co-accused? It appears that even the investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute. 32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilized for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. xxxxx 35. In one of the recent pronouncements of this Court in Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, authored by one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.), the legal principle applicable apropos section 482 of the CrPC was examined. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under section 482 CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines. 36. For the foregoing reasons, we have reached to the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the appellant, the same will be nothing short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. This is a fit case wherein, the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Similar is the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015 dated 31.8.2023 reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083. The relevant para 13 of the same reads as under :-- “13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. So far as the documents filed by the petitioners in the petition are concerned, the same have remained unrebutted as the respondent has not filed any reply to the same, and whether such documents can be relied upon or not has also been answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others reported as (2008) 14 SCC 1 , in para 38 has held as under :-- “38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in section 227 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the learned magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi’s case (supra) by the larger Bench to which the very same question had been referred.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. In view of the same, given the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the continuation of the present criminal proceedings would be a sheer misuse of the process of the Court, and accordingly, the present Misc. In view of the same, given the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the continuation of the present criminal proceedings would be a sheer misuse of the process of the Court, and accordingly, the present Misc. Criminal Case stands allowed, and FIR lodged at Crime No.33/2022, at police Station Neemuch Mahila police station, District- Neemuch for offence under sections 498-A,323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby quashed as also the entire consequential criminal proceedings are also hereby quashed. 17. Accordingly, the Misc. Criminal Case stands allowed and disposed of.