THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-13974-2017 (PREETAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 6 Jabalpur, Dated : 12-03-2018 As the petitioners have filed separate petitions for quashing of the FIR dated 03.01.2017 at [CASE NUMBER], involving the same facts and circumstances, hence both the petitions are heard analogously and are being decided by this common sh order. e 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant ad respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint before the police
Pr station- Dehat, Tikamgarh that the marriage of the complainant was solemnised with the petitioner No.1 a hy [ENTITY] ([CASE NUMBER]). Petitioners 2 and 3 are elder brothers of [ENTITY]. The petitioner No.4 is the ad mother of the petitioner No.1. In [CASE NUMBER], the M petitioner No.1 [ENTITY] is the younger brother of [ENTITY] and the petitioner No.2 Ms. [ENTITY] is of younger sister and petitioner No.3- Smt. [ENTITY] is the elder rt sister of [ENTITY] (husband of the complainant); and ou petitioner No.4 is the husband of petitioner No.3.
3. According to the complainant, her marriage was C solemnised on 08.02.2015 by observing Hindu rites. At the h time of marriage, Rs. 5 Lacs cash and articles and goods ig worth Rs.10 Lacs were given by the father of the H complainant. After 6-7 days in her matrimonial home, her husband- [ENTITY], mother-in-law -Smt. [ENTITY], sisters-in- law; and [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] started harassing the complainant. The mother-in-law used to beat her and treat her with cruelty. When she returned to her maternal home, she informed about the incident to her parents. Some how she was sent back to the matrimonial home. Her husband [ENTITY] is in Army. Therefore, he stays at the place of his duty. Other members of the family used to treat her with cruelty. They took away her ornaments and she was thrown out of her matrimonial house. She did not lodge any report thinking that things would become normal in future and her matrimonial home should not be disturbed. But when she was subjected to torture, she lodged the report at Mahila Thana, Sagar on 15.08.2016. Thereafter her in-laws had come to threat her not to take her back to the matrimonial home.
4. On behalf of the petitioners it is claimed that there has been allegation of dowry harassment and cruelty but the complainant kept herself busy in conversing with one [ENTITY] in her mobile by making calls and messages. When e objection was raised, she made conspiracy and cooked up a ad story and she is misusing the process of law. Complainant has Pr filed this complaint to wreak vengeance against the petitioner and to drag her in to litigation.
5. The complainant herself left the matrimonial house on hy 08.08.2016 stating that she would live in her parental house ad on her own will. The complainant has dubious character, M therefore, she continues intimacy with stranger. When she was stopped to do so, she alleged about dowry. The complaint of filed application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for restitution of conjugal rights and on the other hand, she rt has filed an application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ou before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tikamgarh. C
6. It is contended that the petitioner [ENTITY] filed an h application under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for ig grant of decree of divorce on the ground of adultery and H cruelty. The complainant obtained interim maintenance and has lodged false complaint against the petitioners. At the Family Reconciliation Centre no progress was made. Therefore, the complainant lodged the FIR to harass and victimise the petitioners.
7. On behalf of the respondent/State, the petition has been vehemently opposed and it is contended that FIR, statement under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and statement under [SECTION] of the [ACT] distinctly made out the case against the petitioners.
8. Perused the record. The complainant was subjected to harassment at matrimonial home. The husband after the marriage left for his Unit at Rajasthan. When he was leaving the house, he told his family members to throw out the complainant from the house. The mother-in-law tried to pour the kerosene oil on her and beaten her. She called her father and left for maternal home. Thereafter, she lodged the report. Certain documents on record show that calls made by the complainant which are not part of the challan. The same sh can be considered at the time of trial.
9. On perusal of the record, it is found that the sister-in-law ad Smt. [ENTITY] is the elder sister of [ENTITY] and married Pr to [ENTITY], Rahatgarh. She is not residing at the same town where the complainant was residing in her marital home. No a specific allegation of demand of dowry or harassment has hy been made against her. Similarly, no specific allegation ad regarding demand of dowry or harassment has been made M against [ENTITY] (brother-in-law); [ENTITY] (sister-in-law); and [ENTITY] (brother-in-law). Of course, of there have been omnibus allegations against them.
10. In the case of [PRECEDENT] it has been held as under:
ou C Complaint of dowry harassment h complainant making specific allegations ig not only against husband but also against H in-laws Conceding that in matrimonial case tendency to rope in as many members of family of husband as possible is on rise Court would not at intermediate stage speculate whether allegations are true or false under direct discharge
11. In the case of [PRECEDENT] Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that in exercise of inherent power under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon enquiry whether evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained.
12. In the case of [PRECEDENT] it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that large number of family members had been inlcuded in FIR casually mentioning their names and contents did not disclose their sh active involvement, cognizance of matter against them would e not be justified. Under such circumstances, cognizance would ad result in abuse of judicial process Pr
13. In the case of [PRECEDENT] Hon'ble the Apex a court has held that there is need for restraint. Gunuine cases of hy dowry harassment matter of serious concern but exaggerated ad version of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal M complaints. Allegations to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection, especially against husband's relatives who were of living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the rt matrimonial home of the complainant. ou
14. No specific allegation has been made against the petitioners C in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY]; Ku. [ENTITY]; Smt. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], though their names have been ig reflected in the statements. However no specific allegation of H demand of dowry of Rs. 5 Lacs and how these persons were harassing the complainant is not made clear. I n matrimonial cases, there is a tendency to rope in as many members of family of husband, even if they are residing separately or a remote place. Perusal of the record, clearly indicate that no specific allegation against [ENTITY]; Ku. [ENTITY]; Smt. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. Therefore, continuation of trial against these persons would be abuse of process of law.
15. In view of the preceding analysis, [CASE NUMBER] is allowed. FIR dated 03.01.2017 registered at [CASE NUMBER] is quashed in respect of the petitioners in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY]; Ku. [ENTITY]; Smt. [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are concerned. Consequently, [CASE NUMBER] ([ENTITY] and Others v. State) is dismissed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE sh SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2018.03.23 16:00:19 +05'30' e ks ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H