Mahesh Mathur (Dr.) and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint case registered at case No. 6402/12 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Gwalior u/s 498A of I.P.C. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that complainant/respondent no. -2 Smt. Manisha Mathur was married to petitioner- No. 1 -Mahesh Mathur on 24.10.2010. After marriage the petitioners and her other in-laws used to beat and harass her in connection with demand of Rs. five lacs in dowry. It is further alleged that in the month of April 2012 when she was at Ajmer her husband, father-in-law, mother in law and sister in law gave beating and on 27.4.2012 forcibly turned her out from the matrimonial house and sent her to Gwalior by keeping her jewellery and clothes with them. They also told respondent No. 2 to ask her parents to arrange Rs. five lacs. On 6.5.2012 husband of respondent No. 2, Dr. Mahesh Mathur, father-in-law Ramswaroop Mathur, mother-in-law Smt. Sheela Mathur and sister-in-law Geeta Dayal came to Gwalior and asked her family members as to whether amount has been arranged when the rather of the complainant told mat he is not in a position to arrange Rs. five lacs Sheela Mathur and Geeta Dayal became annoyed and started shouting that if he was not having the amount, why he has married his daughter. Thereafter, father of the complainant called his son-in-law Sughar Singh and daughter Namita Singh along with Anil Chaudhary and Dharmendra Gaud. When they were pleading that father of the complainant is unable to arrange Rs. five lacs, then Dr. Mahesh Mathur, Geeta Dayal and Ramswaroop Mathur told that when Rs. five lacs will be arranged, they may be informed on telephone and then they will take the complainant back. Till then, he will keep his daughter with him. It is further alleged that after the petitioners filed a restraint petition in the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer, and she has received a summon on 19.5.2012 for 25.5.2012. Thereafter, she made complaint to SHO, Manila police Station, Padav, SHO, police Station, Janakganj, and S.P. Gwalior, but no action has been taken against the petitioners, hence, she has filed this complaint. Learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 20.7.2012 has taken cognizance against the petitioners u/s 498A of the IPC and issued bailable warrants against them. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

It is submitted that the private complaint lodged by complainant/respondent No. 2 does not disclose prima-facie commission of any offence. No details have been mentioned regarding the allegation of physical and mental torture. Learned trial Court has failed to consider the declaration deed, which was signed by petitioners No. 1 and 2 at one side and respondent No. 2 and her father at the other, in respect of transaction of dowry/gift at the time of marriage, in which it is clearly mentioned that dowry was neither demanded by the groom''s party, nor given by the bride''s party. The learned Court below has failed to consider that despite beating of the complainant by the petitioners, the complainant/respondent No. -2 was not sent for medical examination. The learned Court below has also not considered that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have filed restraint petition in which respondent No. 2/complainant has submitted reply, but nowhere in the reply any such single incident or allegation has been mentioned for which private complaint has been filed, on the contrary she has admitted that she herself left the house of petitioners with their consent. It is prayed that by exercising inherent powers u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the private complaint filed by the respondent No. -2/complainant be quashed.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that complaint filed by respondent No. 2 prima facie discloses the commission of offence u/s. 498A of I.P.C. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have scrutinized the record.

On perusal of Annexure P/2, it appears that this declaration deed has been signed at the time of marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 by Dr. Mahesh Mathur, R.S. Mathur, S.K. Nigam and Smt. Manish. It is specifically mentioned that dowry was neither demanded by the groom''s party nor given by the bride''s party. The articles given to the bride and groom as personal gifts have also been mentioned in it. Annexure P/3 Sheela Mathur and Ramswaroop Mathur against respondent No. 2 alleging that behaviour of respondent No. 2 towards them is not proper. She was using defamatory language and also misbehaved with them. It is specifically mentioned in para 15 that respondent No. 2 on her own will against the wishes of her husband left the matrimonial house alongwith her articles and is residing at Gwalior. From the perusal of reply filed by respondent No. 2, the allegation of misbehaviour has been denied, however, in reply to para 15, it is stated that respondent No. 2 came to Gwalior with the consent of her husband as well as father-in-law and mother-in-law. The railway reservation has also been got done by the husband of respondent No. 2. Though it is stated in para 3 that complainants (petitioners No. 2 and 3) used to demand dowry, but nowhere it is mentioned that how much and when the demand of dowry was made by them.

Annexure P/4 is the copy of petition filed by petitioner No. 1 u/s 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Ajmer. It reveals that it has been filed on 16.5.2012. The complaint has been filed by the respondent to the S.P., Gwalior and SHO police Station Janakganj on 13.6.2012. In this complaint, allegation has been made that soon after marriage in-laws started demanding Rs. five lacs and used to beat her. In the month of April, 2012 her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and sister-in-law have beaten her on demand of dowry. On 27.4.2012 she was kicked out of the house by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and forcibly sent to Gwalior by train. It is pertinent to mention that in the reply of the suit filed by Sheela Mathur and Ramswaroop Mathur (petitioners No. 2 and 3), respondent has stated that she came to Gwalior with the consent of her husband and parents-in-law. Thus, the allegation made in the complaint is contradicted by the reply of respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint before the JMFC, Gwalior on 22.6.12. Respondent No. 2 has also filed an application u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. As noticed earlier, the father-in-law and mother-in-law have already filed the suit against respondent No. 2 on 11.5.2012 and petitioner No. 1 has filed a divorce petition on 16.5.2012. Thereafter, respondent No. 2/complainant has lodged the report to the S.P., Gwalior, and later on filed the private complaint.

Thus, from the above, it is evident that respondent No. 2 has filed the private complaint against the petitioners after she came to know that petitioners No. 2 and 3 have filed a restraint application and petitioner No. 1 has filed a divorce petition against her. The reply filed by respondent No. 2 in response to restraint application filed by petitioners No. 2 and 3 at Court at Ajmer, prima facie raises a question mark about the truthfulness of the allegations made by respondent No. 2 in the complaint Had the petitioners really demanded dowry and used to harass or beat respondent No. 2 soon after marriage, men respondent No. 2 must have made a complaint at least to her father S.K. Nigam, but no such complaint has been made by the complainant. Had the petitioners really beaten respondent No. 1 in the month of April, 2012 when respondent No. 2 was at Ajmer, there was no reason not to lodge the report of the incident It seems mat the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is just a (sic)nter blast of the proceeding started by petitioners No. 2 and 3 and petitioner No. 1. From the perusal of the complaint it is seen that omnibus allegations have been made not only against husband, father in law, and mother in law, but also against sister in law who is residing in Singapur.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 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 498A of the Penal Code ---

xxxx

It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints u/s 498A 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 Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint u/s 498A 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.

In the instant case, as noticed above the allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment prima facie have no ring of truth and appear to have been made with a view to harass the petitioners.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, laid down the principles 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 extraordinary 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 toto.

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 noticed hereinabove, respondent No. 2 has not made any complaint regarding the alleged demand of dowry and beating in the month of April, 2012 and complaint to S.P., Gwalior and present private complaint have been filed only after petitioners No. 2 and 3 have filed the restraint petition and petitioner No. 1 has filed the divorce petition. Further, in the reply to the restraint application, it is stated by respondent No. 2 in her reply that she came to Gwalior on her own will with the consent of her parents-in-law. Thus, prima facie the allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment appear to have been made with an oblique motive.

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 criminal proceedings in complaint case No. 6402/2012 pending before the JMFC, Gwalior are hereby quashed.