Deepak Patel vs State Of Madhya PradeshAnd Another

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.655/2011 registered by Police Station Annpurna,

District Indore for offence under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC.

The undisputed fact is that the police after completing the investigation has filed the charge-sheet and charges have also been framed and evidence

has begun, but neither the charge-sheet has been challenged nor the order framing charges has been challenged.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of complainant/respondent no.2 Smt. Suman. The complainant had

lodged a FIR on 17/10/2011 at Police Station Dewas, District Dewas for offence under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC against the applicant as well

as her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law on the allegation that she was married to the applicant on 6/5/2009 at Indore and dowry as per

the financial capacity of the father of the complainant was given, however, few days after the marriage, the applicant and the co-accused persons

started passing taunts that the father of the complainant has wrongly given Maruti 800 car, whereas Maruti Swift car should have been given and on

this issue, the complainant was maltreated, harassed and beaten by the applicant as well as the co-accused persons. The information with regard to

maltreatment was given by the complainant to her parents as well as her uncle. Thereafter, she has been turned out of her matrimonial house with a

direction that unless and until the complainant brings a Maruti Swift car, she must not come back to her matrimonial house. Since no cause of action

had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Dewas, therefore, it appears that the case diary was transferred to Police Station

Annpurna, District Indore and accordingly, on 22/10/2011 the police registered the Crime No.655/2011 at Police Station Annpurna, District Indore. It

is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the co-accused persons, namely, Ku. Jyoti, Smt. Manu and Jagdish had filed a petition under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was registered as M.Cr.C. No.715/2013 and after considering the allegations made against the accused

persons, this Court has quashed the FIR registered in Crime No.655/2011 by Police Station Annpurna, District Indore against the co-accused persons

and consequently, all other proceedings initiated on the basis of the FIR have also been quashed. It is further submitted that the case of the present

applicant is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013. By referring to paragraph 9 of the said judgment, it is

submitted by the counsel for the applicant that as the FIR was lodged by way of counterblast to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act as well as considering the reply sent by the respondent to the notice issued by the applicant for restitution of conjugal rights, it is clear

that no offence warranting prosecution of the applicant has been made out.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for respondent no.2 that this Court while considering the case of the co-accused persons has considered the

law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in AIR 2010 SC 3363 and

had considered the allegations against the co-accused persons in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case and, therefore, it

cannot be said that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013 because

undisputedly the applicant is the husband and it is the settled law that the near and dear relatives of the husband can be prosecuted only when there is

specific allegation against the near and dear relatives of the husband. In the present case, the allegations, which have been made against the applicant,

are specific. Even if the reply to the notice issued by the applicant is considered, then it is clear that under the heading “Additional Contentions†it

has been specifically mentioned by the complainant/respondent no.2 that after the marriage and during pregnancy the applicant had beaten the

complainant on various occasions, but in order to save her married life, the complainant was bearing all the harassment. It is submitted that in the FIR

as well as in the case diary statement and in the reply to the notice, which was sent by the applicant, the complainant has specifically stated that

because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the complainant was beaten by the applicant on various occasions. It is further submitted that in order

to make out an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the demand of dowry is not sine qua non and any act of cruelty, which may lead the woman to

commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, would also amount to cruelty.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

The first submission made by the counsel for the parties is that the respondent is residing in her parents home from 26/2/2011, whereas the marriage

was performed on 6/5/2009 and the respondent gave birth to a child on 6/2/2011. On 25/7/2011 a notice for restitution of conjugal rights was issued

and ultimately on 30/8/2011 the applicant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and by way of

counterblast, on 17/10/2011 the FIR was lodged at Police Station Dewas. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the FIR in question

has been lodged by way of counterblast to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant. The ground raised by the applicant is no more res integra. The Supreme Court in

the case of Pratibha vs. Rameshwari Devi and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held as under:-

“15. In our view, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant

wife for lodging the FIR on 31-12-2001 on the ground that she had left the matrimonial home at least six months before that. This is because, in our

view, the High Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant and her family members were, during this period, making all possible efforts to enter

into a settlement so that Respondent 2 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 Respondent 2 husband.

It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and Respondent 2 husband had

filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a civil court cannot be

a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code 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. Such

being the position, we are, therefore, of the view that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code has gone beyond the

allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR by going

beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by relying on extraneous considerations.â€​

It is clear from the documents, which have been placed on record that the respondent did not take any legal action against the applicant and she might

be under the hope and belief that the behaviour of the applicant may improve at any point of time and thus, when she realized that the applicant has

started taking legal remedies, then if the complainant decided to lodge the FIR against the applicant, then it cannot be said that the FIR lodged by the

respondent no.2 was nothing but was by way of counterblast to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant that the allegations made in the FIR as well as the case diary statements of the complainant and

her witnesses have already been taken into consideration by this Court while deciding M.Cr.C. No.715/2013 and when this Court has already come to

a conclusion that the said allegations are not sufficient for prosecuting the co-accused persons, then the same analogy drawn by this Court would

apply to the facts of the present case also. By referring to paragraph 11 of the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013, it is submitted by

the counsel for the applicant that this Court has considered the additional contentions referred by the respondent no.2 in her reply to the notice.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant and have also gone through the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.

No.715/2013. In paragraph 11 of the said order this Court has considered the additional contentions mentioned in the reply to the notice issued by the

applicant for restitution of conjugal rights, however, the allegations made in paragraph 2 of the said reply were not considered by this Court for the

simple reason that the contents of paragraph 2 are against the applicant only and have nothing to do with the co-accused persons. Paragraph 2 of the

additional contentions mentioned in the reply to show-cause notice is reproduced as under:-

^^2- ;g fd fookg ds i'pkr rFkk izsxusUlh ds nkSjku dbZ ckj vkids i{kdkj }kjk jkr esa gekjh i{kdkj ds lkFk ekjihV Hkh dbZ fdUrq gekjh i{kdkj ;g lc lgrh

jghA^^

Thus, it is clear that in the reply itself the respondent no.2 had specifically mentioned that the applicant also used to beat her even during the period of

pregnancy. Whether the cruelty was in relation to demand of dowry and non-fulfillment of the same or was for any other reason, but the same would

bring the said act within the definition of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC, therefore, the allegations made in paragraph 2 of the reply sent by the

respondent no.2 is sufficient to prima facie hold that there are specific allegations against the applicant pointing out his cruel behaviour towards

respondent no.2. Even otherwise, it is well established principle of law that if the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, then the FIR

has to be registered. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.715/2013 is concerned, in that case the allegations were considered in

the light of the fact that the accused persons were the near and dear relatives of the applicant. The applicant is undisputedly the husband of the

complainant/respondent no.2 and his position cannot be equated with his near and dear relatives. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that

although this Court might have quashed the proceedings against the accused persons on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the

case of Preeti Gupta (supra), but in view of the specific allegations made in the FIR, case diary statement as well as in the reply to the notice sent by

the applicant, there are prima facie allegations against the applicant warranting his prosecution.

It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.2 that although the application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act was allowed, but in spite of that the applicant did not take any step for restitution of his married life. On the contrary, it is respondent no.2, who

has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for execution of the said decree, which clearly shows that in fact it is the applicant who does not

want to keep respondent no.2 with him and it was the applicant whose behaviour is cruel. It is further submitted that the petition filed by the applicant

under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has already been dismissed.

Although respondent no.2 has not placed any document on record to substantiate her submissions, but the submissions made by the counsel for

respondent no.2 are not controverted by the counsel for the applicant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the FIR in Crime No.655/2011 registered by Police Station

Annpurna, District Indore for offence under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC cannot be quashed qua the applicant. Furthermore, charge-sheet has

already been filed, charges have been framed and evidence has also begun, but for the reasons best known to the applicant, neither the charge-sheet

was challenged nor the order framing charges has been challenged, although this application has been filed in the year 2015 and by that time the

charge-sheet was already filed and charges were already framed by order dated 28/3/2012.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.