Pradeep Sharma vs Smt. Seema Sharma and Another

D.K. Paliwal, J.—This revision petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Cri. Case No. 6402/2012, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 406, 420 of IPC. The brief facts of the petition are that respondent No. 1, who is wife of the petitioner, has filed a private complaint in the Court that her marriage was solemnized on 2.12.2009. At the time of marriage her parents gave cash of Rs. 2,50,000/-, one motor cycle, one golden Nath, Mangalsutra, two silver payals, two golden bangles and one Beda. These articles are her Stridhan. After marriage all the jewelery has been taken in possession by the accused persons. The petitioner and in-laws of the complainant committed cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry and ultimately on 17.12.2010 petitioner has left the respondent and her parental home keeping her Stridhan. Respondent No. 2 complainant demanded her Stridhan at that time but the same has not been returned. On the inquiry learned trial Court has taken the cognizance against the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1/complainant u/s 498-A of IPC and cognizance against the petitioner was taken against which the petitioner has filed petition u/s 482 of IPC in this Court has stayed the proceedings. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 complainant has filed false private complainant, which is liable to be set aside. The petitioner himself has lodged complaint the S.P. and Police Station, Padav alleging that respondent No. 1 complainant gave threat to implicate the petitioner in false case. Respondent No. 1 complainant is not agreed to reside with the petitioner. Petitioner has also preferred petition u/s 9 of Hindu marriage Act before the Family Court, Gwalior and in the reply submitted the respondent No. 1 complainant it is stated that she wants divorce. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 complainant has filed this private complaint just to harras the petitioner and prayed that cognizance taken by the learned Court below be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 complainant has supported the impugned order and submitted that learned trial Court has rightly taken the cognizance against the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no need to quash the proceedings.

In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

From the perusal of the complaint under Sections 406, 420 of IPC filed by the respondent/complainant, it appears that it is alleged that jewelery given by her parents at the time of marriage were kept by the accused persons assuring that whenever she requires same shall be returned to her. It is further alleged that on 17.12.2010 petitioner alongwith complainant went to her parental house and left her there keeping her Stridhan with him. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier complaint was lodged at Police Station Padav, by the respondent/wife against the petitioner u/s 498-A, 506 IPC, against which petition bearing M. Cr. C. No. 2166/2012, was filed before this Court and this Court has stayed the proceedings vide order dated 04.04.2012. Thus, it becomes clear that the respondent/wife has filed this private complaint under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC, after this Court has stayed the proceedings of the complaint filed by the respondent/wife u/s 498-A of IPC.

It is pertinent to mention that in Annexure P/2 petitioner has made a complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police that on 02.10.2010 wife of the applicant left her matrimonial house with her brother after quarreling with the applicant and he has filed an application u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Gwalior.

Annexure P/3 is the notice sent to the respondent/wife by the petitioner Pradeep through his advocate on 26.11.2010. In the notice, it has been mentioned that on 02.10.2010 respondent has left her matrimonial house alongwith her brother without the permission of the husband and taken away all the jeweleries and clothes. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent/complainant has filed the complaint not only against her husband but also involved her father-in-law aged about 70 years, mother-in-law aged about 65 years, Jeth and two brothers of her husband. Had really Stridhan of the respondent/complainant was kept by the petitioner and has not been returned, this fact would have also been alleged in the complaint filed u/s 498-A of IPC., but nowhere it is alleged in the complaint.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, dealing with inherent powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has held 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 formulae 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.

Filing of the private complaint by the petitioner soon after the filing of the petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner and order staying the further proceedings by this Court initiated on account of the complaint of the respondent/complainant clearly indicates that this private complaint has been filed with an object to harass the petitioner and continuation of such proceedings certainly amounts to abuses of process of Court and covered under the guidelines of Bhajanlal''s case (supra)

In view of the aforesaid discussion, petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, petition is allowed and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 6402/2012 initiated on the complaint of the respondent/wife is hereby quashed.