Abhinav Awasthy vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR of Crime No.18/17,

registered at Police Station Bada Malhara, District Chhatarpur and subsequent, Criminal Case No.77/17 pending before the learned JMFC, Bada

Malhara.

The respondent No.2 is the complainant who lodged the report.Her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1/Abhinav Awasthy on 07/12/2015.

The petitioners No.2 & 3, are the parents-in-law and petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. The complainant lodged FIR before

Police Station Bada Malahara on 05/02/2017 against the petitioners and averred that, after the marriage, she started living at the matrimonial home.

Her husband /Abhinav Awasthy, father-inlaw/Satya Narayan Awasthy, mother-in-law/Smt. Shanti Awasthy and brother-in-law/Anmol Awasthy

tortured the complainant and caused harassment mentally and physically for demand of Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry, whereas her father had given

Rs.2,50,000/-, 2 tola gold chain, 1 tola ring, fridge, cooler, etc., which are more then he could have arranged. Because of the harassment and torture,

she left the matrimonial home and is living in her maternal home since last two months. The petitioner say that, unless and until, Rs.3,00,000/- (Three

lacs) is provided, she will not be allowed to live in her matrimonial home. She was threatened not to come to the house at Chhatarpur, otherwise, she

and her relatives will be killed. On this report, Police Station Bada Malhara lodged FIR at Crime No.18/17 for offences under Section 498A, 506, 34 of

IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that, the respondent has falsely lodged the report. Immediately, after the marriage at her instance, a family

settlement was entered on 15/03/2016, whereby the shares of the property of the father of petitioner No.1 was divided. It is also claimed that, because

of the complainant, petitioner No.1/Abhinav Awasthy had started living separately with the complainant in a rented house. The complainant and

petitioner No.1 executed affidavits in this regard on 13/05/2016. Because of the complainant, the cordial atmosphere of the petitioners was disturbed.

The complainant was threatening the petitioner No.1 for committing suicide, if her demands are not met.

It is also contended that, because of this threatening, the petitioners submitted complains to the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur on various dates

which included 23/11/2016. The petitioners also claimed that, the petitioner No.1/Abhinav Awasthy filed an application for divorce on 21/02/2016 and

the notice of the same was received by the complainant. She made appearance on 15/02/2017 in the matrimonial case. Meanwhile, she lodged FIR on

05/02/2017 as a counterblast.

On behalf of the petitioners, it is also contended that, the report has been lodged at Bada Malhara. However, after the marriage, the complainant

resided with the petitioners at Rajnagar, Chhatarpur. Therefore, the incident whatever have taken place has occurred at Rajnagar, therefore, Police

Station Bada Malhara has no territorial jurisdiction to lodge the report.

On behalf of the respondent/State, the application is vehemently opposed and submitted that, the respondent/wife has lodged the report with regard to

the harassment and ill-treatment met with her by the petitioners. Hence, there is sufficient matter to proceed with the case.

On behalf of the respondent/complainant it is claimed that, so far as, the affidavits and the family settlement is concerned, the signatures of the

complainant was obtained by the petitioners, she do not know the contents of the documents. It is also contended that, immediately after her marriage,

she was subjected to cruelty and harassment till the demand of dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- is met.

Considering the fact that, the complainant was ill-treated and subjected to cruelty and threatened not to come to the matrimonial home without the

demand being fulfilled. She was bound to live on her maternal house.

Perused the record.

The statement of the complainant as well as her brother/Daya Shanker, the father/Thakur Das supports the case of the complainant. As regarding the

report and subsequent injuries, it is stated that, the medical officer who examined the injuries has opined that, the injuries are the old injuries. The

affidavits has been prepared after the signature obtained from the complainant or not is a matter of evidence. At this stage, no opinion can be given in

this regard. The allegations with regard to the said demand of dowry has been made against the petitioner

No.1/husband, petitioners No.2 & 3, the father-in-law and mother-in-law and also against petitioner No.4/the brother-in-law. On a thorough analysis of

the preliminary evidence, it seems that, name of petitioner No.4/Anmol Awasthy has been unnecessarily dragged as it has become the tendency to

rope all the members of the family of husband when such dispute arises.

As regarding the lodging of the report by the complainant after receiving the notice under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it would be suffice to

say that, the petition for divorce was instituted on 21/12/2016 and notice was issued to the respondent No.2. She marked appearance on 25/02/2017

but she lodged FIR on 05/02/2017 most likely after receiving the notice. But this cannot be a ground for quashing the whole criminal proceeding. In

this regard, it would be appropriate to mention here that, the family dispute was initiated immediately after the marriage. The family settlements were

done on 15/03/2015. The affidavits were executed on 13/05/2016 and 18/05/2016. The complaints made by the petitioners itself show that, the dispute

was began before 23/11/2016, hence, there was a dispute continuously. It will not be proper to say that, after the application for divorce, the

complainant has lodged the FIR to wreak vengeance.

In the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & others reported as AIR (2013) SC 181 and Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported as

(2010) 7 SCC 667, the Apex Court has opined that, the allegations are to be scrutinized with a great care and circumspection specially against

husband's relatives who were living at different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant.

The Apex Court has observed that, mere causal reference to the names of the members of the husband's family is not sufficient to take cognizance.

The name of the petitioner No.4/Anmol Awasthy seem to have mentioned causally by the complainant. The complainant has made an omnibus

statement against the petitioner No.4, therefore, following the law laid down in Dashrath P. Bundela Vs. State of M.P. reported as 2012 (1) MPHT

FIR is quashed, so far as, the petitioner No.4/Anmol Awasthy is concerned.

In the case ofPratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and others reported as 2007 AIR SCW 593, the Apex Court has held that, ""the quashing of FIR alleging

dowry harassment by drawing adverse inference against complainant on ground that, the complaint was filed about six months after she was forced to

leave her matrimonial home and after filing of divorce petition by husband was improper. The Court failed to appreciate that, the complainant and her

family members were during this period, making all possible efforts to enter into a settlement so that the husband would take her back to the

matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during this period, there was every possibility of not entering into any settlement with the husband. The

complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and husband had filed a divorce petition. Filing of a divorce

petition in a Civil Court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as it is well settled that criminal and civil

proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise out

of the same set of facts"". Â

As regarding the territorial jurisdiction of police station Badam Malhara, the objection has aptly raised by the petitioners that, the incident allegedly, as

per the complaint occurred at the jurisdiction of Rajnagar police station where the complainant was residing at her maternal house and not at police

station, Bada Malhara. Therefore, on this ground, the petition cannot be quashed. But the police station, Bada Malhara is directed to examine the same

and send the complaint and the papers to police station Rajnagar for proceeding in accordance with law.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.