Shreekant vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Since M.Cr.C.No.12341/2018 and Cr.R.No.1125/2018 are between the same parties and involve similar questions of fact and law, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

M.Cr.C.No.12341/2018 has been instituted on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioners accused persons Shreekant, P. Durgaprasad Rao, P. Ranganayakamma and Smt. Prabha Patibanda for quashing the FIR No.108/2017 dated 13.05.2017 registered by P.S.-Vijaynagar, Jabalpur under Sections 304-B read with section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners. Cr.R.No.1125/2018 is directed against the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 804/2017, whereby a charge under Sections 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was framed against the accused persons petitioners Shreekant, P. Durgaprasad Rao, P. Ranganayakamma and Smt. Prabha Patibanda.

The facts giving rise to aforesaid petitions may be summarized as hereunder. Petitioner Shreekant had married deceased Dr. Anuradha Tiwari on 08.12.2016 by Hindu rites at Jabalpur. Accused/petitioner no.2 P. Durgaprasad Rao is father, accused/petitioner no.3 P. Ranganayakamma is mother and accused/petitioner no.4 Prabha Patibanda is sister of Shreekant. At the time of engagement of Shreekant with Anuradha on 10.11.2016, the family members of Anuradha had given gold ornaments, clothes, fruits and sweets and Rs.161,000/- in cash to Shreekant and his family members. On 8. 12.2016, on the occasion of marriage, they had given gold ornaments and Rs.3,52,000/- in cash and some silver utensils worth Rs.1 lac to Shreekant and his family members. On 8. 12.2016, the reception was hosted in the matrimonial home of deceased Anuradha at Hyderabad. The reception was attended by her Mother Manorama, father Madhusudan and brother Ashish. On that occasion also, some gold ornaments were given to Shreekant. On 03.01.2017, deceased returned from her matrimonial home at Hyderabad to her maternal home at Jabalpur. She stayed with her parents till 21.01.2017. On 21. 01.2017, petitioner Shreekant had come to Jabalpur to fetch his wife. At that time, Shreekant demanded Rs.10 lacs in cash and a Mahindra SUV 500 Car in dowry; whereon, the relatives of deceased told Shreekant that they were going to marry Ashish in April, 2017; therefore, they would not be able to give money forthwith but after marriage, they would discuss the matter with Shreekant. On aforesaid assurance, Shreekant returned along with Anuradha to Hyderabad. After their return, Anuradha informed her parents on telephone that due to non-fulfillment of demand made by Shreekant, he, his mother P. Ranganayakamma, his father P. Durgaprasad Rao and his sister Smt. Prabha Patibanda were harassing her. She also told that though Prabha was married, she was also involved in the harassment. After some days, deceased Anuradha again complained to her mother on mobile phone regarding harassment being meted to her by her in-laws. Her mother Manorama had tried to pacify her; however, Anuradha used to complain that she was being continuously harassed by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and she was not happy at her matrimonial home. She told that she was made to sleep on floor and her in-laws insisted that until and unless their demands were fulfilled, they would not accord the status of daughter-in-law of deceased Anuradha. Father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law often said that deceased Anuradha was ugly and even their maids looked better. They would not allow her to enter kitchen. Her husband Shreekant would turn her out of his room and would ask her to sleep on floor in the drawing room.

It is also the case of the prosecution that Ashish, brother of the deceased was to marry on 29.04.2017. Husband and in-laws of Anuradha were invited for aforesaid marriage. Anuradha came to Jabalpur on 28.03.2017 for helping in preparations for the marriage. The parents of the deceased Anuradha requested Shreekant and his parents to attend marriage on several occasion; however, they said that unless their demand was not met, they would not attend the marriage. Thereafter, Manorama, mother of the deceased, assured P. Ranganayakamma, mother of Shreekant on telephone that their demands would be discussed. After that, Shreekant and his parents booked seats in flight for visiting Jabalpur on 28. 04.2017. However, on that date, Shreekant informed deceased Anuradha on mobile phone that they would not be attending the marriage. Even after that, Madhusudan, father of the deceased tried to assure in-laws of her daughter that their demand would be discussed but they declined to come. Deceased Anuradha was very much upset by refusal of her husband and in-laws to attend the marriage. The guests at the marriage kept enquiring about her husband and in-laws. She was shocked by behavior of her in-laws. As a result, she committed suicide at night on 03.05.2017 by hanging. The matter was reported to police the same day.

After investigation, first information report was lodged on 13.05.2018 and after completion of investigation; charge-sheet in the matter was filed. Accused persons/petitioners filed miscellaneous criminal case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.12341/2018. The trial Court framed charges as aforesaid against petitioners/accused persons on 27.02.2018; whereafter, Cr.R.No.1125/2018 was filed for quashing the charges.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604; wherein, it has been held that 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, the High Court may, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizance of offence to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. However, the Supreme Court cautioned that powers should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In support of his contention, he submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case by the relatives of the deceased in order to wreak vengeance upon the husband and his relatives for the death of their daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance upon the statement dated 30.05.2017 made during morgue enquiry by Madhusudan, father of the deceased.

It has been contended that in the statement dated 3.05.2017, i.e., on the date of death of deceased, Madhusudan had not made any allegations with regard to demand for dowry. In that statement, no specific allegations had been made against the petitioners; however, when statements of the parents and brother of the deceased were recorded on 14. 05.2017 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., they leveled all sorts of allegations against the petitioners regarding demand and acceptance of dowry, which clearly indicates that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. It has also been contended that P. Durgaprasad Rao is a foreign returned Scientist and P. Ranganayakamma was Principal in a College. Sister-in-law, Smt. Prabha Patibanda had married much before the marriage of the deceased and lived separately in a different town; however, all have been falsely implicated in the case.

It is true that in the statement of Madhusudan recorded on 03.05.2017, there was no allegation with regard to demand of dowry by Shreekant on 17.01.2017. The only allegations that had been leveled against Shreekant and his parents were that they had failed to honour the promise of attending marriage of Ashish, brother of the deceased, on 28.04.2017. Deceased Anuradha had complained to her father that Shreekant was not interested in continuing relationship with Anuradha. Anuradha's mother Manorama had told Madhusudan that Shreekant was impotent. It was further alleged that Shreekant, his mother and father used to mentally harass the deceased. At the instigation of his mother, Shreekant used to maintain a distance from Anuradha. He did not talk to Anuradha during the entire period of 35 days when she was at Jabalpur in connection with preparations for her brother's marriage. Madhusudan had further stated that at the time of Holi, he had sent his son Ashish to Anuradha's in-laws at Hyderabad with gifts but petitioner Shreekant was not inclined to come closer to Anuradha.

The statement of Madhusudan recorded on 03.05.2017 further reveals that though Shreekant and his parents had not initially demanded any dowry, they used to nag Anuradha. At the time of the marriage, a silver thali and a silver glass were given to petitioner Shreekant. They used to keep complaining to Anuradha that the thali and Glass were very light and were like a plate. The weight of the thali ought to have been at least 3 quarters of a kilogram. In-laws also used to complain that the parents of Anuradha had not taught her how to cook.

It may be noted in this regard that serious allegations have been leveled against husband, his father and mother by the relatives of the deceased in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. Simply because the allegations regarding demand for dowry do not find place in the statements of the father of the deceased recorded immediately after her death, it cannot be inferred that they have been made with an ulterior motive, to wreak vengeance upon the husband and his parents for the death of the daughter. Moreover, it is not in dispute that father P. Durgaprasad Rao and mother P. Ranganayakamma lived jointly with their son Shreekant at Hyderabad. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case either to quash the first information report or to set-aside the charges against petitioners Shreekant, father P. Durgaprasad Rao and Mother P. Ranganayakamma.

However, the case of petitioner no.4 married sister Smt. Prabha Patibanda is different from that of other three petitioners. It is not in dispute that Prabha Patibanda was married much before the marriage of deceased. She lived with her husband at a different place called Bachupalli, P.S.-Kukadpalli, Telangana. Thus, she did not live jointly with the ill-fated couple. There are no specific allegations against sister-in-law Prabha Patibanda regarding either dowry demand or dowry harrassment. There is no mention of her in the statement of the father of the deceased recorded on 3. 05.2017. Even on 14.05.2017, all that has been stated against her is that she also harassed the deceased along with her parents P. Durgaprasad Rao and P. Ranganayakamma when demand for dowry made by her brother Shreekant on 17. 01.2017, was not met. It was also reported that she along with her brother, father and mother used to misbehave with the deceased and used to say that the deceased was ugly and even their maids looked better than the deceased. These allegations are shorn of basic details like time, date and place. It seems that she has been implicated solely because she is sister of petitioner no.1 Shreekant. In these circumstances, allowing criminal proceedings to continue against petitioner no.4 Smt. Prabha Patibanda would be abuse of process of Court; therefore, exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of petitioner no.4 Smt. Prabha Patibanda is justified.

Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioners Shreekant, P. Durgaprasad Rao and P. Ranganayakamma are dismissed. The petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioner no.4 Smt. Prabha Patibanda is allowed. FIR No.108/2017 dated 13.05.2017 registered by P.S.-Vijaynagar, Jabalpur under Sections 304-B read with section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and S.T.No.804/2017 arising therefrom and pending in the Court of XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur stands quashed.

The trial shall continue against petitioner nos. 1 to 3 namely Shreekant, P. Durgaprasad Rao and P. Ranganayakamma, in accordance with law.