Man Singh Rajput vs State Of M.P. And Others

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the charges framed under Section 498-A of IPC & Section

3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide Crime No. 185/2019 against the petitioner and its entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 284/2019

pending before the learned JMFC, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad (M.P.).

The matter in brief is that the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before police station Itarsi stating that her marriage was solemnized with the

petitioner on 16.02.2016 under Hindu customs and rites. She stated that in marriage, her father has given sufficient articles and Rs. 2,51,000/- to the

petitioner. After passing one year of marriage, the petitioner maltreated her on account of demand of dowry. He demanded a car, cash of Rs. 10 lakh

and a house belongs to her father. She alleged that the petitioner tortured her mentally and physically. The petitioner has also not beared the expenses

of her delivery.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner employed as a Clerk working in State Bank of India and posted at Satna, M.P. He is only

son of his parents. He performed the marriage with respondent No.2 on 16.02.2016 under Hindu customs and rites. Petitioner stayed for a week with

his mother along with respondent No.2 at village-Dehri and left for Satna with a promise to take the respondent No.2 after getting house. On

28.02.2016, the respondent No.2 left the Village-Dehri and went to stay with her father and told the petitioner that she cannot leave her father alone

and was not ready to stay in Village-Dehri. Petitioner visited Itarsi nearly every month to persuaded respondent No.2 and when she adamantly

refused to stay in the village, the petitioner got himself transferred to Itarsi from Satna in month of January 2017 and stayed with his mother at Village-

Dehri and attending his bank office by daily going up-down from the village. She further submits that there was no change in the attitude and conduct

of the respondent No.2, who refused to have any relationship with the petitioner and wanted to get rid of the mother of the petitioner and also wanted

to petitioner to stay with her at her father’s house. The petitioner was harassed by respondent No.2 and later she started threatening the petitioner

to file a false case against him and his mother. After continuous nagging and threatening of respondent No.2, petitioner filed a petition under Section

13-A of Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad, M.P. on 22.03.2018. The notice was summoned to

respondent No.2 in the matrimonial case No. 85/2018 and respondent No. 2 made her appearance by filing an application under Section 24 of Hindu

Marriage Act on 05.09.2018 for interim maintenance and the Court below allowed her application and granted Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance

to respondent No.2 and her daughter vide order dated 27.09.2018. He is paying maintenance regularly, as awarded by the learned Family Court. But

thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 23(1) of Domestic Violence and Protection of Women Act, 2005 claiming maintenance

of Rs. 20,000/- per month and also filed a complaint against petitioner and his mother under Domestic Violence & Protection of Women Act, 2005.

The application of respondent No. 2 has been allowed by learned JMFC, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad directed to the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,500/- (Rs.

1,500/- + Rs. 1,000/-) to respondent No.2 and her child vide order dated 04.04.2019. She further submits that respondent No.2 deliberately and with

malicious intention wanted to harass and trouble him by one way or other. According to petitioner, the father of respondent No.2 took her from his

house on 29.05.2017 after threatening the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a complaint before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Itarsi on 04.06.2017 for

settlement in which he stated about the cruel behavior of respondent No. 2 and her father, after that the respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint on

22.03.2018 before police station, Itarsi. Respondent No. 2 gave birth a child on 12.12.2017 at her father’s house. Since the respondent No.2 has

been living at her father’s house since 29.05.2017, therefore, petitioner had no opportunity to torture her physically. According to respondent No.1,

when she was pregnant, the petitioner beat her but prior to 22.03.2018 she did not file any complainant against him. The respondent No. 2 has lodged

a delay FIR and no explanation has been given by her moreover there is serious irregularity is also found in the investigation process of the police as

the FIR was registered on 12.03.2019 whereas the statements of the witnesses have been recorded on 07.03.2019 prior to lodging the FIR, which

clearly indicate that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case with ill motive. She further submits that the learned trial Court erred in

framing the charges for the aforesaid offence on the basis of false allegation made by respondent No. 2 just to harass the petitioner. She filed the

criminal case as a counter blast of the matrimonial proceeding initiated by the petitioner. There is no independent witnesses who have affirmed the

alleged cruelty made against the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint with malafide intention which would be an abuse of

process of law. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner. With these grounds, she prays for quashment of charges framed under Section

498-A of IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act vide Crime No. 185/2019 against the petitioner and its entire criminal proceedings in Criminal

Case No. 284/2019 pending before the learned JMFC, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad (M.P.). In support of her contention, she has relied on the

pronouncement of this High Court in the case Kallu Khan & ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2013) M.P. 2038 and Mahesh Mathur (Dr.) &

ors. Vs State of MP reported in ILR (2013) MP 2050

Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission of petitioner’s counsel and submits that there is sufficient prima facie material

available in the case to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner maltreated the respondent No. 2 on account of demand of dowry. The petitioner is

having illicit relationship with another girl and due to this reason, he tortured the respondent No. 2. The petitioner’s behavior was very inhuman

towards the respondent No.2 as he beat her when she was pregnant. The petitioner had thrown her out from his house since then she is living in her

parental house. By filing additional document the learned counsel for the respondent submits that earlier on dated 22.03.2018, the respondent No. 2

has filed a complaint against the petitioner to various authority. It is well settled principle of law that at the initial stage of trial, deep merits of the case

cannot be considered. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this High Court, which are

mentioned as under:-

Chandralekha and other Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 374.

Taramani Parakh Vs. State of MP and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260.

Mahesh Mathur (Rs.) & others Vs. State of MP and others reported in ILR (2013) MP, 2050.

Atmaram Patel Vs. State of MP reported in 2015 SCC Online Mp 4927.

Amit Kumar Soni and others Vs. State of MP and another reported in 2011 SCC Online Mp 181.

Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.

On perusal of case, it appears that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he maltreated the respondent. No. 2 on account of demand of

dowry. It shows that on the application dated 12. 03.2019, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner. According to FIR, the marriage of the

parties was solemnized on 16. 02.2016 and she is living with him till 22.11.2017 although the petitioner said that she lived with him till 29.05.2017,

thereafter her father took her to his house. The ground raised by the petitioner’s counsel is that the cruelty alleged to be committed in the year

2017 even then the respondent No.2 has lodged the report in the year 2019, which shows that she filed the complaint just to harass the petitioner. The

learned counsel for the respondent relied on judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Chandralekha (Supra) wherein the Court has held that

the offence of Section 498-A is a continuous offence and the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of delay. In the case of Govind Purviya Vs. State

of MP and another reported in 2019 SCC Online MP 3950, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-

“5…………...Whether the reason mentioned in the FIR regarding the delay in lodging the FIR is correct or not, it cannot be ascertained at this stage,

because it will require evidence to decide. Even otherwise delay in lodging FIR is one of the factors to ascertain the veracity of the statement of the prosecutrix,

not a sole reason. So only on that basis proceedings of the Criminal Case No.67/2019 cannot be quashed at this stage.â€​

It is also well settled of principle of law, in matrimonial cases, it is not always easy to take a decision whether to lodge a criminal case against a

person who is already in the category of relation by virtue of matrimonial ties and in such cases the factum of delay has to be dealt with

sympathetically.

Therefore, on the sole ground of delay FIR, the criminal case cannot be quashed, however, effect of the same would be considered at trial.

The another technical issue raised by the petitioner’s counsel is regarding recording of statement of the complainant and other witnesses under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. According to petitioner, the FIR was registered on 12.03.2019 whereas the statements were recorded on 07.03.2019 prior to

registration of the FIR. On perusal of case diary, the submission of petitioner’s counsel is seemed to be correct but at this stage it cannot be

ascertained whether under what circumstances the same was done, this fact can only be find out during trial after examining the concerning

investigation officer. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while quashing the FIR, High Court cannot en devour a hyper-technical

approach. In the case of Mosiruddin Munshi Vs. Mohd. Siraj and another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 2 2the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as

under:-

“10. The High Court has adopted a strictly hypertechnical approach and such an endeavour may be justified during a trial, but certainly not during the stage

of investigation. At any rate it is too premature a stage for the High Court to step in and stall the investigation by declaring that it is a civil transaction wherein

no semblance of criminal offence is involved.â€​ (emphasis supplied)

Even otherwise, it is also well settled principle of law while quashing the charges or FIR, the Court has only to see whether the contention of FIR

or documents annexed with charge sheet, disclose the offence or not. At this stage deep merits of the case cannot be looked into. Moreover, if it is

accepted that there is some irregularity in recording the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is also settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that

statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. being wholly inadmissible in evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court

while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Now, in view of the above cited principle, I proceed with the facts of the case having perused the FIR and other documents annexed in the case.

It is not in dispute that there is a marital relationship between the parties and they have been blessed with one child by their cohabitation. It

appears that after one year of marriage, the dispute was arisen between the parties and to the context of the same, the petitioner has filed an

application before Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra Itarsi, but it appears that he narrated two different stories for the date of 29.05.2017. He does not

disclose about the further proceeding which would have arisen on filing this application. On perusal of FIR and other documents, the allegation found

against the present petitioner is that on account of demand of Rs. 10 lakh, car and house, he tortured the respondent No.2. Further, it is alleged by the

respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with another girl. It is also alleged that the petitioner tortured the respondent No. 2

when she was pregnant and he did not bear the expenses of her delivery.

While rebutting the same the counsel of the petitioner relied on the order of Court below of the proceeding of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act

and submits that the fact regarding illicit relationship with another girl is raised by the respondent in the maintenance proceeding whereas in FIR she

did not say such type of allegation which shows that she is not credible and just to get the monetary benefit, she is creating false story against the

petitioner.

It is true there is no whisper about the said fact in the FIR but keeping the fact in mind that in her earlier complaint dated 22.03.2018, she disclosed

about the same, prima facie, it can not be said the allegation are absolutely absurd. It is settled law that FIR is not an encyclopedia which is expected

to contain all the details of the prosecution case. It is an initial statement only to set the criminal process in motion.

On reading of the FIR as well as other documents annexed in the case, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken into consideration,

no case is made out against the petitioner. There are specific allegation found against the petitioner for harassing the respondent No. 2.

Petitioner/accused is a husband of respondent No. 2 which does not come under the categorically of distant relationship. The question whether the

petitioner has in fact harassed and maltreated the respondent No. 2, is matter of trial. At this stage, there is sufficient prima facie material to proceed

with the trial. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that only on the basis of grave suspicion, the Court can frame the charge. In the case of

Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering the question of framing

the charges, the court may weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been

made out and whether the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained. In

such an eventuality, the Court is justified in framing the charges and proceeding with the trial. The court has to consider the broad probabilities of the

case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but the Court should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and

cons of the matter and weigh evidence as if it is conducting a trial. Therefore, the charges framed by the trial Court and entire proceedings of Criminal

Case No. 284/2019 pending before the learned JMFC, Itarsi, Distt.-Hoshangabad (M.P.) cannot be quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. However the petitioner shall free to raise all the grounds before the trial Court at appropriate stage

of trial and needless to say that the trial Court shall consider the same without being influenced by any findings of this Court.