Ramkumar Sarathe and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh & another

This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the charge sheet of the Crime No.

266/2017 registered in Police Station Ranjhi, District Jabalpur against them and also the proceedings of criminal case no. 454/17 pending before

the court of JMFC, Jabalpur, under Section 498-A IPC.

Facts giving rise to this petition, in shorts, are that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 was performed with respondent no. 2 on 19.4.2016 at

Jabalpur according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent no. 2 gave household items, motorcycle and

Rs.81,000/- in cash and totally expended Rs.12 lacs in the marriage. Petitioner no. 2 is the mother, petitioner no. 3 is the sister and petitioner no. 4

is younger brother of petitioner no. 1, they all are residing in the same house. When for the first time she had gone to her matrimonial house, all the

petitioners told her that her father has given fewer dowries. Petitioner no. 1 is in service. He deserves for more dowry and on account of

dissatisfaction of dowry, all the petitioners started High Court of Madhya Pradesh taunting and torturing and demanded a car more in dowry.

However, she came back to her parental house twice and she remained silent but third time she divulged the behavior and conduct of the

petitioners. The petitioners were firmed in their demand and tortured her continuously. Thereafter, on 22.4.2017 she made a complaint against

them in Police Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Jabalpur and when the matter remained unsettled, a FIR was registered in Police Station Ranjhi,

Jabalpur in Crime No.266/17 and after completion of all due formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners in

commission of the offence under Sections 498-A, 506 of the IPC and under Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before the court of JMFC,

Jabapur where the criminal case no. 454/17 is pending against the petitioners.

The petitioners have sought quashment of the aforesaid proceedings on the ground that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner with

regard to demand of dowry and harassment. Very vague and omnibus allegations have been leveled. In the matrimonial disputes there is a general

tendency to implicate all the family members of the husband in a false case. In this case also, all the family members of petitioner no. 1 / husband

have been roped without making any specific allegation with regard to individual act of each petitioners and petitioners no. 2 to 4 have been falsely

implicated because they are near relatives of petitioner no. 1 who is the husband of respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that in the Police

Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, petitioner no. 1 appeared before the Authority and submitted that he is ready to live along with the complainant /

respondent no. 2 but she refused. It is also submitted that as per the allegations, incident took place at village Jamani, Tahsil- Itarsi, District

Hoshangabad, therefore, the Court situated at Jabalpur has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence. Hence, the proceedings be

quashed.

On behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that from the material available in the charge sheet, prima facie commission of offence under

Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out High Court of Madhya Pradesh

against the petitioners and the credibility and truthfulness of the statements of the witnesses are not required to be considered at this stage. Hence,

the petition be dismissed.

In this case learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has place reliance on a judgment delivered by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in Misc.

Criminal Case No.3658 of 2016 on 9.3.2017 (Parties being Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and anr.), in which, the

proceedings against relatives of the husband were have been quashed on the ground that allegations against them are vague and omnibus and they

resided at different places. But, the facts of the present case are different; therefore, the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid case law is

not attracted in this case. However, in view of the facts of the present case, the proceedings of the trial court are required to be quashed. The facts

of the case show that the marriage was taken place on 19.4.2016 and Since January 2017 respondent no. 2 is residing in her parental house. She

had remained near about 6 months in the house of the petitioners. There are general allegations with regard to demand of dowry, car and

harassment and nothing has been disclosed on which date or time and month by whom the alleged demand was made and the manner by which

she was subjected to cruelty and how she was tortured and harassed. Therefore, the allegations are extremely vague and omnibus and appear to

be leveled on account of fit of anger because of matrimonial differences with petitioner no. 1/ husband as in the Pariwar Paramarsh Kendre she

refused to settled the disputes amicably with the petitioners.

The object of the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC is to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband to

satisfy the demand in connection with demand of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498-A of the IPC against

the husband and his relatives, to settle her differences and if the husband and his relatives are punished it would amount to misuse of process of the

court. In view of this court, in the present case, prima facie there is no sufficient material to prosecute the petitioners with regard to High Court of

Madhya Pradesh commission of aforesaid offence and the parties have another option to settle their disputes in accordance with law.

Undoubtedly at this stage it is not required to be seen that whether the allegations are true or otherwise but when the allegations are so abjured,

ambiguous or doubtful that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its

inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice. Hon''ble the Apex court in the recent judgment,

Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U.P. And anr., passed in criminal appeal no. 1265/2017 dated 27.7.2017 as observed in para 14, as under :-

''""Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife

particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the

Act 46 of 1983. The expression ''??cruelty''??in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave

injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that

large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier

noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At

the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not

only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.''

High Court of Madhya Pradesh

In view of the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex court, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case are kept continued it

would amount misuse of process of law. Further if the allegations are taken into consideration then also they do not constitute alleged offence.

Further, the alleged act was committed in village Jamani, Tahsil ''"" Itarsi, District Hoshangabad. There is nothing on record to show the fact that any

act was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Jabalpur. In the circumstances, the JMFC concerned has no territorial jurisdiction to take

cognizance of the case against the petitioners. Hence, the charge sheet and the proceedings of criminal case pending against the petitioner are liable

to be quashed

Consequently, this petition is allowed and the charge sheet of Crime No.266/17 registered in Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur for the offence

under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC and section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed and the proceedings pending against

them in criminal case no. 454/17 before the court of JMFC, Jabalpur are also quashed.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court below as well as the concerning police authority for information and compliance. CC as

per rules.