Kamal Nayan Singh and Others vs State of M.P. and Another

R.C. Mishra, J.—This is a petition, u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the FIR, leading to registration of Crime No. 14/2009 at Mahila Police Station, Rewa, against all the three petitioners, in respect of the offences punishable u/s 498-A read with S. 34 of the IPC and Section 3 read with 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as well as the consequent proceedings, pending as Cri. Case No. 8924/10, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa. Marriage of the respondent no. 2 namely Richa Singh was solemnized with petitioner no. 3 Saurabh Singh, the son of petitioner nos. 1 & 2, on 28.11.2005. At the time of marriage, petitioner no. 3 was employed in USA-based Firm and was residing at 1100, Hensel Drive, Apartment VIL, College Station, Texas 77840, where the respondent no. 2 lived with him only for two short spans of 6 months and 1 month. She has been residing in her mother''s home since 17.12.2008 and meanwhile, on 24.4.2009, she had filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage before Family Court at Rewa on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. These facts are not in dispute.

The FIR, based on a written application submitted by respondent no. 2 on 6.4.2009 before SHO of Manila Police Station Rewa contained the following allegations -

(i) Soon after the marriage, all the petitioners started subjecting her to frequent taunts for bringing insufficient dowry.

(ii) In April, 2006, she was sent all-alone to USA to her husband''s house in Texas and during her stay there for a period of 6 months, she has been persistently subjected to cruelty for non-satisfaction of the demand of money in dowry.

(iii) In January, 2007, she was again sent to petitioner no. 3''s house and feeling disgusted and humiliated due to frequent harassment meted out to her at his hands, upon instigations made by the other petitioners by way of telephonic calls, she, ultimately, in the month of February, 2007, consumed sleeping pills and had to remain hospitalized for 5 days. Immediately thereafter, she was called back by her mother to India.

(iv) It is only after persuasion that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had agreed to bring her back to their home at village Bamhangavan, Satna. However, they used to make demands for new articles, car & ornaments as well as reproach her for not earning anything. She, therefore, joined service in Vindhya Institute of Technology at Satna.

(v) Ultimately, in December, 2008, the petitioner no. 3, while telephonically communicating his decision to divorce her, asked her mother to bring her back from the matrimonial home and the petitioner no. 1 also insisted upon the mother to do so.

In the light of the submission made by learned Senior Counsel that he has instructions not to press the petition, so far as it concerns the petitioner no. 3, arguments have been heard on merits of the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2.

According to learned Senior Counsel, prosecution of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 for the offences is an abuse of the process of the Court in view of the following facts:-

(i) No supportive document other than a letter-dated 14.2.2007 said to have been written by respondent no. 2 to her friend Ekta Tiwari, could be collected during investigation.

(ii) A bare perusal of the letter would show that no specific allegation as to demand of dowry was made against the petitioner no. 1 whereas precise accusation made against the petitioner no. 2 was to the effect that she used to impress upon her son, the petitioner no. 3 here, to cause a diamond necklace gifted to her by his mother-in-law but, this allegation was not reflected in the application forming basis of the FIR.

(iii) The admitted fact that they permitted respondent no. 2 to do a job in the Institute of Technology is suggestive of their open-mindedness. Further, the fact, as reflected in the application-dated 12.1.2009 submitted by the petitioner no. 1, before Superintendent of Police, Satna to refer the matrimonial dispute to Pariwar Paramarsha Kendra for settlement, that on 17.12.2008, while going to the Institute, respondent no. 2 had also taken petitioner no. 2 in a car to the house of her brother for dropping her there, is indicative of cordiality of relations between her and petitioner no. 2.

(iv) No plausible explanation was furnished by respondent no. 2 for not informing the police about the acts of cruelty and harassment allegedly committed by her parents-in-law immediately after leaving their home.

Attention has also been invited to the contents of the under mentioned documents -

(i) Petitioner no. 1''s letter addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Rewa, informing about threats of false implication said to have been given by respondent no. 2 and her mother.

(ii) Report-dated 19.5.2009 authored by S.P., Satna disclosing that during the proceedings initiated by Manviya Paramarsha Kendra, Satna, upon the application made by petitioner no. 1, - (a) the respondent no. 2 failed to appear despite service of notice and (b) on 4.3.2009, in her mother''s home at Rewa, she clearly expressed her disinclination to participate in the conciliation proceedings, characterizing her husband as a mental case.

(iii) Relevant order-sheets scribed by the Councilor of Kendra before closing the process of counselling in light of the wife''s unwillingness.

While opposing the prayer for quashment, learned Panel Lawyer as well as counsel for the respondent no. 2-complainant has submitted that the delay in lodging FIR had occasioned in view of the possibility of an amicable settlement. It has also been contended that demand for diamond necklace was virtually included in the demand for ornaments, as highlighted in the FIR.

Making reference to the statements given by Dr. Jyoti Singh, the mother of respondent no. 2, on oath in the matrimonial proceedings, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has pointed out that along with ornaments and household articles a cash amount of 4 lacs was handed over to the petitioners at the time of marriage; even before that, articles and ornaments worth Rs. 2.20 lacs were given over to them and after the marriage, 1.29 lacs were given in March, 2007 for purchasing air ticket for her daughter''s return journey from USA.

In response, learned Senior Counsel has urged that, in fact, the FIR was lodged on 6.4.2009 with a view to creating evidence to substantiate the claim for divorce, for which the petition was moved on 24.4.2009. He is further of the opinion that allegation as to demand of additional cash amount in dowry was apparently inconceivable as the petitioner no. 3 continued to remit money to the respondent no. 2 during her stay in India. For this, attention has been drawn to the contents of the remittance requests-dated 8.6.08, 11.6.08, 17.7.08 and 24.10.08.

Although, the inherent powers, u/s 482 of the Code, are to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of Court but not to stifle a legitimate prosecution, when the issue involved, whether factual or legal can not be decided without sufficient material ( Minu Kumari and Another Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, referred to) yet, fact of the matter is that the light of the background facts and circumstances, the allegations made in the FIR, as against petitioner nos. 1 and 2, are inherently improbable and the proceedings are instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on them. As such, their prosecution is an abuse of the process of Court as it falls under categories (5) and (7) of the cases, as enumerated in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , attracting interference under the inherent powers. Further, this Court''s failing to use the power for advancement of justice would also lead to grave injustice to them ( Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, followed).

Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part and the proceedings in Cri. Case No. 8924/10 (supra), so far as they relate to petitioner nos. 1 & 2, are hereby quashed. Needles to say that without affecting the merits of the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner no. 3, the corresponding part of the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Petition partly allowed.