Harinarayan and Others vs Smt. Shewta Parmar

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 8.2.2013 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Private Complaint No. 1254/2013, whereby cognizance u/s 498-A of IPC and u/s 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners. Brief facts of the petition are that respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging that marriage between respondent and petitioner No. 5 was solemnized on 21.6.2010 at Sehore. Soon after the marriage the petitioners started demanding dowry of Rs. Twenty Five lacs from the respondent and used to harass the complainant. Thereafter, petitioner No. 5 was selected for PG course, thereafter he came for his studies at Gwalior but the complainant remained at Bhopal but she was subjected to cruelty by all the petitioners. It is further alleged that respondent has conceived but the petitioners have done sex determination of the child and the child was girl. Respondent again conceived then she gave birth to a girl child on 27.8.2012 but demand of dowry was not stopped. On the basis of the complaint learned JMFC, Gwalior after due enquiry has taken cognizance against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before filing of the complaint by the respondent, petitioner No. 5 has already filed a divorce petition in which respondent appeared on 5.12.2012. It is further submitted that petitioners have also made an application to the Police that they are receiving threat from the respondent that the case, which has been filed by the petitioner No. 5 for divorce against the respondent is not withdrawn, the respondent will file a false private complaint. Thus, on this counter blast this private complaint has been filed by the respondent. It is submitted that order passed by the learned JMFC is illegal. It is submitted that learned Court below while taking cognizance has ignored the fact that private complaint has been filed by the respondent after filing of the divorce petition. It is submitted that learned JMFC also required to go through the report submitted by the Women Cell Department in which it was mentioned that the allegations made by the respondent are false. But the learned trial Court has in a hastily manner taken the cognizance, which is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

It is not disputed that marriage of the respondent was solemnized with petitioner No. 5 Dr. Subhash Parmar on 21.6.2010. Before filing the private complaint in the Court of CJM, Gwalior complaint was filed before the S.P., Gwalior and the report was submitted by Mahila Thana, Padav to S.P., Gwalior in which it has been mentioned that both the parties were called by the CSP for counseling but the dispute could not be settled. It is further mentioned that husband was present but wife and her father had not attended the counseling proceedings despite information and stated on telephone that she would start proceedings at Sehore. On inquiry it is found that the application has been filed exaggerating the facts that there is no material to proceed against persons except the husband.

Respondent has filed a private complaint in the Court of CJM, Gwalior on 18.1.2013. In this private complaint not only the husband but also mother-in-law, father-in-law and sisters-in-law have been impleaded as accused. Apart from this three others have also made the accused.

From perusal of the petition filed u/s 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner No. 5 in the Family Court, Bhopal, it appears that this petition has been filed on 7.11.2012. Notice was issued and the case was fixed for conciliation proceedings on 5.12.2012 and on that date respondent appeared alongwith Advocate Shri Verma and filed an application u/s 14 of the Family Court Act to give permission.

Thus, it becomes clear that respondent was fully aware that divorce petition has been filed by the petitioner against her in the Family Court at Bhopal and same is fixed for conciliation proceedings on 5.12.2012.

Annexure P/7 report lodged by the petitioner No. 5 at P.S. Shahpura, Bhopal reveals that the petitioner No. 5 has filed a divorce petition in the Family Court, Bhopal, which was fixed for 5.12.2012. Respondent alongwith her father appeared on 5.12.2012. They abused the petitioner No. 5 and asked him to withdraw the divorce petition, otherwise petitioner will be involved in dowry case. This complaint has been filed by the petitioner on 11.12.2012. Mother of the petitioner No. 5, Smt. Gayatri Parmar has also lodged a written complaint at P.S., Shahpura on 2.11.2012 alleging that on 28.10.2012 respondent came alongwith her sister and father and pressed her neck giving threatening to send her to jail. Respondent has filed the complaint before SP, Gwalior on 15.1.2013 and private complaint has been filed on 18.1.2013.

Thus, it becomes clear that the complaint to the SP and the private complaint in the Court of CJM, Gwalior have been filed after receipt of notice of the petition u/s 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner No. 5 in Family Court, Bhopal as well as the complaint filed by the petitioner''s mother on 2.11.2012 and by petitioner No. 5 on 11.12.2012 at P.S., Shahpura.

As per the complaint it is alleged that as soon as the respondent/complainant went to her Sasural her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law started harassing her and demanding Rs. Twenty Five lacs of dowry. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 5 was selected for PG course soon after marriage, then the petitioner No. 5 and complainant wife came to Gwalior in the month of July, 2010. Even after this whenever father-in-law, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law came to meet the petitioner No. 5, they used to harass the respondent to bring the cash.

It is pertinent to mention that omnibus allegations have been leveled against the petitioners. No specific allegations have been made against the petitioners.

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.

"31. The Courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code-----xx xx xx

It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints u/s 498-A 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 bona fide 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 complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Br who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint u/s 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavor 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

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Harayana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 laid down the principal of law enunciated in series of decisions relating to exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. and formulated the guidelines observing as under:-

This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specified provisions in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, has observed as under:-

It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegation are accepted in to.

In the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

Inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

Recently, Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, has observed as under:-

If the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the name accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law.

In the instant case, as discussed above, it is apparent that the allegation of demand of dowry, harassment and beating made against the petitioners appears to be inherently improbable, absurd and malicious. It appears that allegations have been levelled with a view to harass the petitioners.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of the criminal trial against the petitioners would be sheer abuse of process of law. Consequently, petition is allowed and the order dated 8.2.2013 passed in Private Complaint No. 1254/2013 by JMFC, Gwalior, whereby cognizance has been taken u/s 498-A of IPC and u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed.