Govardhan and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

M.K. Mudgal, J.—Heard on admission.

Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred u/s 482 of CrPC, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing First Information Report concerning Crime No. 31 of 2014 u/s 498A read with Section 34 of IPC registered at PS Ambah District Morena.

Facts in a nut-shell giving rise to the petition are that complainant Hemabai was married to petitioner no. 1 Govardhan on 11.4.2010 and a son was born out of the wedlock. The husband and in-laws of complainant used to harass her for demand of dowry and sometime turned her out of home, hence, on her written report addressed to the SP Morena submitted at PS Ambah, Crime No. 31 of 2014 was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 34 of IPC and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act which is pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false case has been got registered by the complainant against the petitioners. Earlier also, she lodged a FIR bearing Crime No. 50 of 2010 for the offence punishable u/s 498A and 506B/34 of IPC bearing Case No. 10381 of 2010. In that case, on the basis of compromise, order dated 28.3.2011 was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate I Class acquitting the petitioners. Thereafter the complainant remained with her in-laws for 4-5 days and returned to her parental house. From the behaviour of the complainant, it seems that she does not want to continue living with her in-laws and is lodging repeated FIRs with the false allegations on the same facts which were stated in the earlier report in order to harass them. Hence, the FIR lodged by the petitioners be quashed.

The counsels for the respondents opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the earlier case was dropped on the basis of compromise made between the parties. The petitioners had promised the respondent no. 2 to keep her with them well, however, they continued misbehaving and maltreating her for the demand of dowry and she was ousted from the house. The subsequent report lodged by the respondent no. 2 is based on the new facts regarding cruelty, hence, it cannot be quashed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

Heard the arguments and perused the record. It is evident that earlier the respondent no. 2 lodged a report on 11.4.2010 at P.S. Padav regarding harassment and cruelty committed by the petitioners with her. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the petitioners were tried in the court of JMFC Gwalior bearing Case No. 10381 of 2010 and in that matter, a petition for compromise was produced by the respondent no. 2-wife and the petitioners were acquitted vide judgment dated 28.3.2011 in the case after having considered and appreciating the evidence. The respondent no. 2 has again lodged a report dated 24.12.2013 at PS Ambah bearing Crime No. 31 of 2014 u/s 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

On perusal of the contents of the report, it transpires that the allegations made in the report are omnibus and vague. No specific dates on which the Respondent was harassed by the petitioners after having been acquitted of the criminal case have been stated in the FIR. The story of alleged harassment since marriage till the report lodged is the same in the FIR as stated in the earlier report dated 14.4.2010 of which, the trial had already been conducted. The criminal trial again on the same facts cannot be initiated afresh u/s 300 of Cr.P.C. It appears here that if the trial is continued for the same allegations, it would be abuse of the process of law. This court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C to prevent the abuse of the process of law. In this case, there is no chances of conviction.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, , have taken note of the growing tendency of filing of complaints, which are not bonafide and filed with oblique motive and observed as under:

It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code-

*** *** ****

It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints u/s 498 IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints, which are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaint. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint u/s 498-A as a basis human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

Keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, the petition having relevance for prevention of abuse of the process of law is hereby allowed and the FIR bearing Crime No. 31 of 2014 registered at PS Ambah u/s 498A of IPC and its consequent proceedings is quashed.