Shashi Khare vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard.

This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashment of the F.I.R. registered vide Crime No. 10/2017 at Police Station-

Mahila Thana, District-Bhopal for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of the IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as

proceedings of Criminal Case No.3245/2017 pending before JMFC, Bhopal arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R.

In the case, it is not in controversy on that marriage of respondent No.2 Amrita Khare was solemnized with applicant No.3 Prateek Khare on

19.05.2015 at Nougaon, District Chhatarpur and applicant No.2 Smt. Janaklali is mother while applicant No.1 is sister of applicant No.3.

Facts of the case briefly stated are that on 19.01.2017, respondent No.2 lodged an FIR at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Bhopal for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of the IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in which it was alleged that at the time of her

marriage her parents gave Rs.5 Lacs cash, ornaments worth Rs.3 Lacs and clothes and other articles of Rs.2 lacs and also spent Rs.2 lacs on

reception. After marriage when she went to the matrimonial house her husband applicant No.3 told her that he does not like her and marriage was

solemnized just to fulfill the desire of his father and she is mentally ill and very thin and marriage was done to get dowry and to treat her as servant.

She remained in the matrimonial house near about one year but the applicant No.3 never showed any interest in the matrimonial enjoyment. When she

tried to make relations, she was told to maintain distance and deprived her from matrimonial relations. When this attitude was brought to the notice

of the parents of the applicant No.3, they said that applicant No.3 is not well, he is suffering from aliment, and therefore, she should not compel him

for matrimonial relations. With regard to aforesaid behavior of the applicants she was beaten by the applicants. Some days before when she was

beaten too much by her in-laws, her maternal uncle brought her to Bhopal as her father was no more, where her husband applicant No.3 came in the

house of his maternal uncle and abused and beaten her and also threatened her for life saying that until the demand of Rs.5 lacs and four wheeler is

fulfilled he will not keep her with him and will not extend her matrimonial pleasure.

The police after investigation filed a charge sheet before the JMFC, Bhopal and cognizance was taken on the basis of the charge sheet and criminal

case No.3245/2017 was registered which is still pending.

The aforesaid F.I.R. and proceedings of the case have been challenged by her on the ground that from perusal of the F.I.R. no offence, as alleged, is

made out as the averments with regard to dowry and harassment are not specific and vague or omnibus. No specific date, time and place of the

alleged incident have been disclosed. Applicants No.1 and 2 are near relatives of the applicant No.3. They have been falsely implicated in the case.

Facts as narrated in the F.I.R. show that the respondent No.2 was in the house of maternal uncle at Bhopal since last six months before the date of

lodging F.I.R. If she was harassed and beaten in the matrimonial house, she would have lodged F.I.R. immediately and no explanation has been given

about non-lodging of the F.I.R.

Averments regarding beating of the respondent no.2 by the applicant No.3 in the house of maternal uncle at Bhopal prima-facie appear to be

unbelievable as no prudent man can believe it that husband who had not interested to keep his wife with him would have gone to a distant place

Bhopal just in order to raise the demand of dowry of Rs.5 lac and four wheeler in the house of maternal uncle in absence of maternal uncle or aunt to

keep her and prima-facie there is no medical evidence with regard to beating her at Bhopal. Whole story has been cooked up just to show the

continuity of the allegations with regard to harassment and beating in connection with demand of dowry to bring the case in the jurisdiction of Court at

Bhopal. Further, it is submitted that the facts of the case prima-facie show that the FIR has been lodged just to take revenge with the applicant No.3.

Further it is submitted that averments in the FIR categorically reflects the cause of the dispute is not demand of dowry and harassment; but,

dissatisfaction and reluctantness of the applicant No.3 to make physical relationship with the respondent No.2, therefore, it cannot be said that the

applicants have committed an offence of cruelty for demand of dowry as the FIR and the proceedings of the criminal case be quashed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 contended in reply that the averments made in the FIR prima-facie disclose the

ingredients with regard to commission of the aforesaid offence. Merely on the ground that there is no specific date, time and place has been

mentioned it cannot be said that the story of the respondent is a concocted and false. The truthfulness of the averments cannot be considered at this

stage. The legal requirement for prosecution is limited to the availability of prima-facie material to prosecute which is fulfilled in the case. So far

as the objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Bhopal Court is concerned, there is a specific averment in the FIR about the misdeed

committed by the husband which was in continuation of the offence committed in the matrimonial house, therefore, it cannot be said that Bhopal Court

has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. Hence, the petition be dismissed.

Having considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, so far the objection with regard to territorial

jurisdiction of the Bhopal Court is concerned, in the FIR there is a specific averment about the act of demand of dowry and harassment at Bhopal in

the house of maternal uncle of the respondent no.2, therefore, proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the

JMFC, Bhopal. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment of this Court in case of Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of

M.P. [2006 (1) M.P.L.J. 250] is concerned, the same is not applicable here as the facts of the present case are different.

Now the question is that whether on the ground of vague and omnibus averments with a view to take revenge suppressing actual cause of the dispute

with malice intention the F.I.R. can be quashed. In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this court

passed in the case of Dashrath P. Bundela & others Vs. State of M.P. & another [I.L.R. (2011) MP 2923] in which considering the other grounds

with the ground that there is no specific allegation that when demand was made, when she was beaten and by whom, no specific year, month, date or

time was mentioned, the FIR was quashed against the near relative of the husband.

The aforesaid judgment does not lay down the law that merely on the ground that no specific year, month, date or time of demand of dowry and

harassment or act of beating has been mentioned, the FIR is liable to be quashed. However, such circumstances are relevant to determine the

possibility of developing false story. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khetan Vs. Ram Gopal Poddar & another [2010 (10)

SCC 673] has observed that :""11. We reiterate that when the criminal court looks into the complaint, it has to do so with an open mind. True it is that

that is not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the allegations; but where the allegations themselves are so absurd 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. The High Court is invested with the tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interests of

justice. Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the High Court to look into the allegations with the openness and then to decide whether to

pass any order in the interest of justice. In our opinion, this was a case where the High Court ought to have used its powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

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.

In view of the aforesaid legal position, if the story as disclosed in the FIR is seen or analyzed, prima-facie it appears that the real cause of the dispute

is that the applicant No.3 has failed to fulfill matrimonial duty providing sexual pleasure to the respondent No.2 and remained reluctant to co-habitate

with her and the applicant instead of taking right recourse to get rid of the problem, has made omnibus averments with regard to dowry and cruelty. If

she was beaten in the matrimonial house definitely FIR would have been lodged immediately by her or her maternal uncle; but, no such action has

been taken for six months and the story with regard to beating and demand of dowry at Bhopal was made to bring the matter in the jurisdiction of the

Bhopal Court.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution story prima-facie appears absurd and unbelievable.

As mentioned earlier 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.

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.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition is allowed and the charge sheet filed against the applicants vide Crime No. 10/2017 registered

at Police Station-Mahila Thana, District-Bhopal for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506/34 of the IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act is hereby quashed and consequently, proceeding of Criminal Case No.3245/2017 pending before JMFC, Bhopal against the applicants is hereby

set-aside.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial court as well as the concerned Police authority for information.

CC as per rules.