Mayank Purohit and Others vs State of M.P. and Another

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR dated 22.6.2012 registered against the petitioners at P.S. Kotwali, Datia at Crime No. 270/2012 u/s 498-A of IPC and u/s 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the complaint of respondent No. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.6.2012 complainant Poonam has lodged a written complaint in Police Station Kotwali, Datia, alleging that she got married to petitioner No. 1 Mayank on 2.12.2010 and in that marriage her father had given articles valuing about Rs. six lacs as Dowry to the petitioners. After the marriage petitioner gave a complaint that petitioners used to torture and beat the complainant on the pretext of bringing further Rs. Four lacs from her father to invest in their business. It is further alleged that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are false and concocted one, as the actual story is that after petitioner got married to complainant her behaviour was not cordial. She created such hostile environment in the family, which was unbearable, but the petitioners tolerated the same to save the relationship and marriage. Petitioner No. 1 Mayank tried several times to enquire from the complainant to know the reason for her cruel behaviour towards him and his family members but she did not told anything and her behaviour became more aggressive to the extent of even beating the petitioner No. 1 Mayank. The petitioners tried very hard to secure the marriage but behaviour of complainant went above the petitioners'' tolerance. It is further alleged that it was agreed between the parties that they will mutually take divorce and the petitioners'' family will give her Rs. Four lacs. Thereafter divorce petition has been filed by petitioner No. 1 Mayank. Subsequent to the agreement respondent No. 2 had withdrawn a sum of Rs. Four lacs. It is further alleged that complainant is mere the counter blast to that divorce petition filed by petitioner No. 1 Mayank and as soon as the complainant received the notice of the divorce petition she had lodged the present complaint against the petitioners to extract more money from them.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations leveled in the report are false and concocted. The behaviour of the respondent/complainant was not cordial from very inception of the marriage.

Respondent No. 2 in reply has denied that behaviour of the respondent/complainant was not cordial with the petitioner No. 1 and his family members. It is further denied that she used to quarrel with the petitioner No. 1 and his family members. It is also denied that demand of dowry was not made and cruelty has not been committed by the respondent/complainant. It is stated that due to beating given by petitioner No. 1 respondent/complainant remain admitted in Shankar Multi Specialist Hospital, Jhansi. It is denied that the agreement has been executed by the respondent. It is further stated that the FDR of Rs. Four lacs has been obtained at the behest of the father of the petitioner No. 1 and at the instance of the father of petitioner No. 1 FDR was en cashed and amount of Rs. Four lacs was given to the respondent No. 2 in the month of February, 2012. It is prayed that petition be dismissed.

From perusal of the report lodged by respondent/complainant it appears that allegations has been made that after the marriage on 16.6.2012 petitioners demanded cash of Rs. Four lacs and also stated that unless the amount is not paid complainant shall not be allowed to reside with them. From Annexure P/1 it appears that petitioner No. 1 has filed petition u/s 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage before the Family Court at Jhansi on 19.3.2012. It appears that after filing this petition report has been lodged by the respondent/complainant on 16.6.2012. The petitioner has filed document Annexure P/2 from which it reveals that it was settled between the parties that upon giving cash of Rs. Four lacs respondent/complainant will give her consent for divorce. This document has been written on 11.6.2011. Petitioner has also filed the photostat copy of cheques issued in favour of Poonam Shukla. Cheque No. 12379476 of Rs. Two lacs and cheque No. 12379477 of Rs. Two lacs have been issued by father of petitioner No. 1 Munnalal Purohit in favour of respondent No. 2 Poonam Shukla. From photostat copy of the FDR certificate of Smt. Poonam Shukla it appears that on 24.6.2011 the same has been issued in favour of Smt. Poonam Shukla. By this FDR Rs. Two lacs has been deposited.

Though, the respondent No. 2/complainant denying the execution of agreement dated 11.6.2011 and claiming that it has been forged. However, in the reply respondent No. 2 has clearly admitted that FDR of Rs. Four lacs was made in her favour but claimed that the same has been en cashed and amount of Rs. Four lacs has been given to petitioner No. 1 and his father in the month of February, 2012, but no documentary evidence has been produced regarding encashment of the FDR and it was not stated that in whose presence the amount was given to petitioner No. 1 and his father.

From the documents submitted by the petitioners prima facie it becomes clear that a compromise was arrived at and Rs. Four lacs has been given to the respondent No. 2 by father of the petitioner No. 1 for giving consent for divorce and the petition was filed by petitioner No. 1 on 19.3.2012. The report has been lodged by the respondent/complainant.

"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 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under.:-

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, ''cruelty'' means-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

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.

In the case of State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) 335, certain guidelines, for quashing complaint, though may not be exhaustive, have been laid down. The following may be reproduced as follows.

(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 un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of an 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 specific provision 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 mala fide 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.

In the instant case the FIR lodged by the respondent/complainant shows that omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners regarding demand of cash of Rs. Four lacs. No specific allegation has been leveled against the specific relative. Similarly, no specific dates have been mentioned when respondent/complainant was beaten.

Considering the conduct of the respondent/complainant that she has taken Rs. Four lacs for giving her consent for divorce and when the divorce petition has been filed by the husband, the FIR has been lodged, which clearly goes to show that it is lodged with a view to harass the petitioners. In such circumstances prosecution of the petitioners certainly would amount to abuse of process of Court. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The FIR No. 270/2012 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Datia u/s 498-A of IPC and u/s 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.