Dharmendra Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Another

The applicants have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, the '' CrPC '') for seeking quashment of proceedings drawn against them in furtherance to FIR bearing Crime No.603/2016 for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, the '' IPC ''), registered at Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior.

The facts leading to filing of instant application are that on 18.10.2016 the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 was received by the respondent No.1-Police Station, contents of which disclose the commission of offence punishable under the IPC . Consequently, the respondent No.1 registered an FIR against the present applicants. The allegation of respondent No.2 is that the applicant No.2 is harassing her for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and continuously used filthy language against her.

According to the respondent No.2, the treatment given by the applicant No.2 was brought to the knowledge of applicant No.1; however, he did not react to the complainant and rather justified the conduct of applicant No.2. It has been further alleged that on 15.10.2016, the present respondent No.2 visited the house of her inlaws, where the applicants were residing, in order to take care of ailing child of eldest brother-in-law, who is suffering from Dengue fever whereas she resides at Indore with her husband. Although on such date, the applicant No.2 yet again raked up the same demand of Rs.10.00 lacs and on denial, hurled filthy abuses against the respondent No.2. Thereafter, on 16.10.2016, the respondent No.2 was preparing food for carrying the same to the hospital, when the respondent No.2 slipped on staircase, due to which she skidded and sustained internal injuries. The respondent No.2 is also accusing the present applicants of criminal intimidation and threatened her that if she will not oblige the demand of applicant No.2, her brother will set her right.

The respondent No.2 submitted the complaint with the respondent No.1-Police Station and based on such complaint, on the same date, an FIR was registered leading to filing of charge sheet on 6.12.2016 before the competent Court of jurisdiction. The applicants are seeking quashment of those proceedings. These criminal proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the facts of the present case are fit for invoking extraordinary power of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC for the reason that entire proceedings have been drawn with the intention of falsely implicating the present applicants and settle the personal score as the applicant No.2 is herself victim of ill- treatment by the family members, consequent to which she filed a complaint on 1.4.2015 before the Station House Officer of respondent No.1-Police Station. However, surprisingly no step was taken by the respondent No.1 to investigate the matter and to carry the same for ensuring justice to the applicant No.2. The applicant No.2 also continued to follow up the case with the police by e-mails which did not yield any result. The complaint referred to by the learned counsel for the applicants are brought on record as Annexures P/2 and P/3 along with the instant application.

Learned counsel for the applicants also invited attention of this Court on the fact that the complaint made by the applicant No.2 remained dormant with the respondent No.1 whereas the complaint made by the respondent No.2 has been promptly taken up and an FIR was registered on the same very date whereas as a matter of policy, it is obligatory for each Police Station to first refer the matter before the Family Counseling Centre and only thereafter to register an FIR against the accused persons. He has further placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements by the Supreme Court to substantiate the contentions recorded herein above.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has pointed out that the contents of the complaint do disclose commission of cognizable offence and there is no error committed by the respondent No.1 in registering the FIR. Consequently, it is contended that the documents which are brought on record and marked as Annexures P/2 and P/3 are defence documents and the same cannot be given any consideration at the stage of the proceeding. Therefore, the respondent seeks dismissal of the present application being devoid of merits.

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record filed along with the instant application, this Court is of the opinion that the present application under Section 482 of CrPC deserves to be allowed. In order to supply the reasons to the opinion recorded above, it would be appropriate to deal with the contentions raised by the respondent.

The first contention which appears to be preliminary in nature is that the documents which are brought on record as Annexures P/2 and P/3 by the applicants are the defence documents and there is prohibition in considering such documents in order to decide the application of the instant nature. This contention can be best answered by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar, (2008) 14 SCC 1, has held as under:

"21. We should also keep in mind that it is well settled that a judgment of the Court has not to be treated as Euclid''s formula [vide Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887 : JT (2008) 8 SC 621] ]. As observed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC 579 : AIR 2004 SC 4778, observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid''s formula nor as provisions of the statute. 22. Thus, in our opinion, while it is true that ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the court while framing of the charge in view of D.N. Padhi case [(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] , there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some defence material when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defence material can be looked into by the court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases i.e. where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. 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 materials as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 CrPC 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 case (2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred." 10. The reproduced extracts of the said judgment clearly demonstrate that there is no prohibition in considering even the defence material while exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC.

Consequently, the first contention of the respondent about non-consideration of the defence material is repealed.

The next contention which touches on the merits of the case is that the Court cannot consider the background or the circumstances under which the complaint has been lodged as it is only required to pursue the contents of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 and the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of CrPC and if these materials make out the ingredient of offence charged against the applicants, there is no scope for showing any indulgence. In this context of said contention, it will be worthwhile to quote the following observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd ., (2016) 6 SCC 310:-

"15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 695, para 7)

"7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." 12. The consideration of the reproduced portion clearly indicates that it is open to the Court to enquire into the circumstances and the context in which the complaint has been lodged because it is not expedient in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue when the same has been filed with oblique motive or to settle the personal score.

Having framed the scope of consideration of the present case, now it is appropriate to highlight the fact which has persuaded this Court to allow the present application and quash the criminal proceedings drawn against the applicant. This first circumstance which is established from the statement brought on record along with the charge sheet is that the husband of respondent No.2 is clearly acknowledging the fact that he resides with the respondent No.2 at Indore and that he is posted as Constable in 15th Battalion. This fact indicates that the respondent No.2 and the applicants had no interconnection whatsoever which may imply that there is continuous demand of dowry from the respondent No.2. It is also pertinent to point out that about the date on which the incident is shown to have been committed and has been reported to the police, the respondent No.2 has offered an explanation that she visited the house of her in-laws in order to take care of ailing child of eldest brother-in-law. This fact itself is highly improbable because as the entire family is residing together, there is no occasion for the respondent No.2 to travel all the way from Indore for the purpose. Another apparent improbability is the allegation levelled by the respondent No.2 that the applicant No.2 spilled oil on the staircase. If the respondent No.2 had witnessed such foul play by the applicant No.2 then under the normal circumstances no person would have gone ahead to use the staircase. In addition to this circumstance, the fact that the injuries which are alleged to have been sustained by the respondent No.2 due to her falling from the staircase, is not complemented by the medical report. Among these reasons, the most vital reason is the fact that in-laws of the respondent No.2 and applicant No.2 were named as accused persons for ill-treating the applicant No.2 by making repeated demand of dowry and by intimidating her in the complaint dated 1.4.2015 made before the respondent No.1. However, the respondent No.1 did not take any step for redressal of grievances of the applicant No.2. Further, the e-mails sent to Special Superintendent of Police, Gwalior for taking action against the in-laws of applicant No.2 also did not receive any response from the respondent No.1. Therefore, due to lodging of these complaints the respondent No.2 filed the present complaint so that the applicant No.2 may be pressurized and be prevented from taking any criminal action against the in-laws who were making repeated demand of dowry from the applicant No.2.

It is also apparent from the perusal of the charge sheet that there is no independent material which may lend any strength to the case of the complainant.

On cumulative consideration of the discussion made herein above and on taking note of the fact that the applicant No.2 had lodged a complaint against her in-laws which displeased her in-laws and acknowledgment by the husband in his statement under Section 161 of CrPC that he resides at Indore along with the respondent No.2, it is clear that the allegations are only in the nature of counterblast on being agitated from the complaint filed before the respondent No.1 by the applicant No.2.

Consequent to the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraphs, present application is allowed and the proceeding drawn against the applicant in furtherance to the FIR bearing Crime No.603/2016 is hereby quashed.

However, before parting, it is necessary to place on record the conduct of the respondent No.1 in dealing with the dispute which is amongst the parties. The applicant No.2 has lodged the complaint on 1.4.2015, thereafter e-mail to Special Superintendent of Police Gwalior is sent on 27.11.2015, yet from the record it appears that no steps have been taken by the concerned SHO or Special Superintendent of Police, Gwalior whereas the complaint which has been made on the basis of registration of FIR, was lodged on 18.10.2016 and on the same very date, an FIR is registered by ignoring the policy that the dispute pertaining to Section 498-A of IPC is first referred to the Family Counseling Centre and efforts are made to resolve the dispute amicably. This conflict approach adopted by the respondent No.1 does not leave any suspicion that the complaint by applicant No.2 was not dealt with deliberately and the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 was dealt with unnecessary haste. Thus, this Court records its displeasure in this regard and hopes and trusts that the respondent No.1 will exercise unbiased and impartial approach in dealing with the complaint made before it by any person. Therefore, it is necessary to mark a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, Bhopal with a note that he may look into the matter and take appropriate steps against the erring officials if he so desires.

With the above observation, the present application is allowed.