Ramesh Malviya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioners preferred this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to set aside the

order dated 06/12/2016, passed by the learned 8th ASJ, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.469/16, whereby the order dated 07/01/2016, passed by the

learned JMFC, Bhopal in Criminal Case No.12425/15, charge under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been

framed is affirmed.

The prosecution story in brief is that, marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with Sagar Malviya in the year 2012. The petitioners No.1 & 2 are

the parents of Sagar Malviya and petitioner No.3/Varsha Malviya is the sister of Sagar Malviya.

It is claimed by the complainant that, for some days, she was happy in her matrimonial home but later, her husband/Sagar Malviya, father-in-

law/Ramesh Malviya, mother-in-law/Pushpa Malviya, sisters-in-law, Varsha Malviya and Shikha Malviya treated her with cruelty and were saying

that, she did not bring enough dowry. They demanded a car, ornaments of silver and gold and expensive and luxury items from her parent's house.

Then only she will be allowed to live in her matrimonial home. For small things, she was taunted by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and thereby

caused mental harassment. On 12/08/2015, sister-in-law/Shikha quarrelled with her and spitted on her. She also casted aspersion on her character and

she was being taken to a local tantrik for they wanted a boy child. On 14/08/2015, the complainant being fed up and harassed, came to her parental

house. As she was ill, she could not lodge a report earlier. After she regained health, she lodged the report on 12/09/2015.

Police Nishatpura, Bhopal lodged FIR under Section 498-A of IPC against accused persons. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the

police before the learned JMFC, Bhopal. Criminal Case No.12425/15 was registered, wherein the learned trial Court framed charge under Section

498-A of IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 07/01/2016.

Aggrieved by this, the present petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No.469/16 before the learned 8th ASJ, Bhopal. The learned Revisional Court

affirmed the said order. Hence, the present petition.

On behalf of the petitioners it is claimed that, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. It is contended that, the marriage of petitioner No.3

was performed and she is residing at her in-laws house. She seldom come to her maternal home. She has been falsely implicated. There is no prima

facie evidence against her. The petitioner No.3 is settled in her married life and just due to wreck vengeance, the complainant has implicated her.

Referring to the case of Geeta Mehrotra & another Vs. State of U.P. & another reported as (2012) 10 SCC 741, the petitioner claimed that, the

incident was mere domestic quarrel but the complainant it converted to an offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Similar was the case in Geeta

Mehrotra (supra), wherein the Apex Court has come heavily on such type of complaints and observed that, large number of family members are

included in the FIR by causally mentioning their names and the contents does not disclosed their active involvement in the commission of the crime,

therefore, taking cognizance of the matter against them could not be justified.

It is also claimed that, the petitioner No.1, the father-in-law and petitioner No.2, the mother-in-law were not at all involved in the crime. The petitioners

have not filed any application on behalf of Sagar Malviya, the husband of the complainant. The statement of the complainant under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. does not even reflect the involvement of the petitioner No.1/Ramesh Malviya, the father of Sagar Malviya.

On behalf of the respondent/State, the arguments are denied and it is stated that, the complainant/Manju @ Anushka was suffering at her matrimonial

house. There was dispute in the house. She was subjected to cruelty, harassment and there was demand of dowry by the in-laws, therefore, prima

facie offence under Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioners.

On behalf of the respondent No.2, the contentions are denied and it is argued that, the respondent No.2 was confined in a room for more than 24

hours. She was beaten and there were injuries on her body but when she lodged the report, police did not lodge report as the father-in-law is in a High

Government Service. It is also claimed that, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner before the learned ASJ has been dismissed. The complainant

has filed several complaints to the police. After the FIR, the petitioner has given written complaint on 21/09/2015 to the Superintendent of Police

(North Division), Bhopal (Ann.R/2). Subsequently, another written complaint was submitted on 13/09/2015, wherein the detail of the incident have

been narrated at Paragraphs 11 to 13, wherein the active participation of petitioner No.3/Varsha Malviya is also shown. She was ill-treated,

maltreated and subjected to cruelty. On 11/08/2015, when she rang to her sister, her mother-in-law did not allow to speak to anyone. On the next day,

when her family members called her mother-in-law and informed her that, they are coming to see, at that time complainant/Manju was in a very bad

state for she could not get up at her own. Covering a saree, she was made to sit in the drawing room, so that, injuries caused to her cannot be seen.

When the family members reached there and saw the complainant in a very bad shape and the in-laws told them that, she fell from the stairs. On

saying that, when she is injured to that extend, then why she was not taken to a doctor for treatment. Her in-laws started quarelling with her parents

including the sister-in-law/Shikha and son-in-law/Vicky for Shikha and Vicky were also called who are residing nearby the house.

Complainant father and sister went to police station, Nishatpura for lodging the report. Her in-laws then given in writing at police station, Nishatpura

that in future, they will not harm the complainant. It is also contended that, the accused persons were repeatedly threatening her that, Sagar Malviya

will go for second marriage. At that time, report could not be lodged thinking that, her family should not be disorganized. Her relatives and family

members tried to avoid any unwanted situation. But when things could not be settled, the complainant was forced to lodge the report.

Certain photographs are annexed as Ann.R/1, which are not the part of the challan.

At the outset, it would be appropriate to consider that, the prosecution is based on the FIR and the police statements which are part of the charge-

sheet. The so-called report dated 21/09/2015 made to the Superintendent of Police does not have a receipt. Another complaint made after FIR dated

13/09/2015. The statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15/09/2015. There is no such allegations have been levelled. In the

statement of Babulal, father of the complainant recorded on 07/10/2015, there has been other additional averments which were neither in the FIR nor

in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

In the FIR, there is an omnibus allegations against the petitioner No.3/Varsha. In the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also the name of

petitioner No.3/Varsha is not reflected. She alleged that cruelty has been caused to her on 10/08/2015 by her husband/Sagar and mother-in-

law/Pushpa. In the statement of Babulal under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. recorded on 07/10/2015 seem to be after thought.

Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on State of Bihar Vs. Rajendra Agrawalla reported as (1996) 8 SCC 164, Pratibha Vs.

Rameshwari Devi & others reported as (2007) 12 SCC 369, U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Bhupendra Kumar Modi & others reported as (2009) 2

SCC 147, Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & others Vs. State of U.P. & others reported as AIR (2013) SC 52 and Rajiv Thapar & others Vs. Madan Lal

Kapoor reported as (2013) 13 SCC 330. The Apex court has held that, quashing of charge-sheet for offence under Section 414 of IPC under the

inherent power was held unjustified, in the case of Rajendra Agrawalla (supra). Whereas in the case of Pratibha (supra), the Apex Court has held

that, quashing of FIR is permissible only when FIR does not disclose commission of any offence.

In the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board (supra), the exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been analyzed and held that, the High

Court could not ordinarily embark upon an equiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it

accusation would not be sustained.

In the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat (supra), the Apex Court has observed that, the allegation made against the couple who are father-in-law of the

complainant/wife is though in a respectable position in the Army but if, offence appear to be much too specific could not be ignored at the stage of

framing of charges.

In the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra), the Apex Court has held that, the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised suo-motto to prevent

abuse of process of Court.

So far as, the petitioners No.1 & 2 are concerned, these guidelines are applicable and even if, the petitioner No.1 is placed in a high position but when

the statements of the complainant disclose commission of offence, the same cannot be ignored. But the High Court ought to consider then even, if trial

Court has jurisdiction to hold that trial, the question still remain as to whether the trial against the petitioner No.3, sister of the husband is fit to continue

and whether that amount of abuse of process of the Court. As the contents of the FIR indicate that, the petitioner No.3/Varsha Malviya has been

casually referred and no prima facie case is made out against her in absence of any specific allegation. Allowing the application partly, Criminal

proceeding against petitioner No.3 is, therefore, quashed in the light of the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand

reported as (2010) 7 SCC 667. As regarding petitioner No.1/Mahesh Malviya and petitioner No.2/Pushpa Malviya are concerned, this petition is,

therefore, dismissed.