1 MCRC No. 7339/2017 [ENTITY] and Ors. vs. State of MP & Anr. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR BENCH AT GWALIOR (Single Bench) MISC.CRI.CASE NO. 7339/2017 [ENTITY] & Ors. APPLICANTS Versus State of MP and Another NON-APPLICANTS CORAM Hon. Shri Justice [ENTITY] Appearance Shri [ENTITY] learned counsel for the Applicants. Shri [ENTITY], learned Public Prosecutor for the Non- Applicant No.1/State. Shri [ENTITY] with Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the Non-Applicant No.2. Whether approved for Reporting : No Reserved on : 27-02-2019 ORDER
(Passed on 18th March, 2019) This petition under [SECTION] of [ACT] has been preferred by the applicants invoking the inherent powers of the [ENTITY] and Ors. vs. State of MP & Anr. court, for quashing the FIR dated 7.11.2016 registered by Police Station Guna, at [CASE NUMBER] alleging offences punishable u/[SECTION] of [ACT], and the consequential proceedings including the charge sheet, against applicants No. 1 to 4 who are husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law of the victim/respondent No.2.
2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 7.11.2016 complainant Smt. [ENTITY] lodged a report at Police Station Guna alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant No.1-[ENTITY] as per Hindu customs in the year 2009. In the marriage, the father of the complainant had given dowry and other domestic articles. After one year of marriage, the applicants started to harass the complainant for dowry and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and due to non-fulfillment of the demand applicant No.1 committed marpeet with the complainant. In the year 2011 one girl child was born out of wedlock of applicant No.1 and complainant and the applicants had come to her maternal home situated at Munshipura and demanded dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- where they also committed marpeet with her and left her in her maternal house. On these allegation, FIR has been registered at [CASE NUMBER] for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of [ACT] against the present applicants. After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Magistrate. It is also mentioned in the application that prior to [ENTITY] and Ors. vs. State of MP & Anr. lodging of the present FIR, the applicant No.1 had preferred a petition under [SECTION] of [ACT] for divorce, which is pending before the Family Court, [ENTITY] and notice has also been issued to the non-applicant No.2/complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that the FIR in question is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The non-applicant No.2/complainant has failed to perform her conjugal liability and she herself left her matrimonial house and against his aggressive acts the applicant No.1 had complaint to Superintendent of Police [ENTITY]. It is further submitted that after issuance of notice by the Family Court in a petition filed by the husband under [SECTION] of [ACT], the non- applicant No.2 has filed this false report with a view to put a pressure on them. Therefore, prayed for quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings. Leaned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decisions rendered in the cases of [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT], Ravikant Dubey vs. State of MP and another [2014 (1) MPLJ [ENTITY] and Ors. vs. State of MP & Anr. (Cri) 282; and, [PRECEDENT].
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and the victim have submitted that the FIR reveals harassment and demand made to the prosecutrix since after one year of the marriage till the filing of the FIR and therefore, it is not a fit case for quashment of the FIR. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. [SECTION] of [ACT] reads as under:-
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
A bare perusal of the above provision, especially the explanation of the term cruelty elicits that the same is divided into two categories. The first is willful conduct of such nature which is [ENTITY] and Ors. vs. State of MP & Anr. likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger of life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman whereas the second category is harassment with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
6. On the anvil of the aforesaid provision, if the FIR lodged by the complainant is seen, it is evident that there is general and omnibus allegation against the applicant No.1-husband and his family members and are not sufficient to compel them to fce the ordeal of trial. For the allegation of cruelty to qualify the test of [SECTION], it is necessary that cruelty alleged is of such nature which is likely to drive the prosecutrix to commit suicide or to cause grave danger of her life, limb or health (mental or physical) or such harassment is meted out to the prosecutrix with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security. The allegations as reflected in the FIR do not, in the considered opinion of this court, satisfy the stringent definition of cruelty contained in [SECTION] of [ACT].
9. In one of the recent decisions in the case of [ENTITY] & Ors. Vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. in Cr.A. No. 1045/18 [ENTITY] and Ors. vs. State of MP & Anr. (decided on 21/8/18) Division Bench of the Apex Court while quashing the prosecution of maternal uncle of the husband has cautioned the court to be careful in proceedings against distant relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. Relevant paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
"5. 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 [PRECEDENT]. 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 [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
6. The counsel for the second Respondent submitted that certain documents belonging to the second Respondent were seized from the Appellants which would show their active involvement in the kidnapping of her child. On an overall consideration of the contents of the charge sheet, supplementary charge sheet and the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case has not been made out against the Appellants for proceeding against them under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT].
7. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the proceedings qua the [CASE NUMBER], dated 20.12.2015 under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] registered at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad before the Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, [ENTITY] and Ors. vs. State of MP & Anr.
Cyberabad, Commissionerate. In view of above and the recent decision of Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY] (supra), the decision of the Apex Court in the case of [ENTITY] (supra) cited by the prosecution, is of no avail to the victim."
10. In view of above, it appears that the prosecution launched against the applicants is an abuse of the process of court and therefore, in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]. [PRECEDENT], this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR bearing crime No. 659/2016 registered at Police Station Guna alleging offences punishable u/[SECTION] of [ACT], along with all consequential criminal proceedings including charge sheet against the present applicants.
11. Resultantly, the application filed under [SECTION] of [ACT] is hereby allowed and the FIR bearing crime No. 659/2016 registered at Police Station Guna alleging offences punishable u/[SECTION] of [ACT] and all consequential proceedings flowing from the FIR, including the charge sheet against the applicants are hereby quashed.
([ENTITY]) Judge.
(yog)+ [ENTITY] 2019.03.25 13:36:19 +05'30'