Tarendra and Others vs State of M.P. and Another

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—The applicants/accused have directed this revision u/s 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the JMFC, Damoh district Damoh in Criminal Case No. 2929/11 whereby the charges of section 498-A, 323 in alternate 323/34 of the IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against each of them. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 9.10.11, the victim/complainant/respondent No. 2 Smt. Bharti Mishra, wife of applicant No. 1 while daughter-in-law of applicant No. 3 and sister-in-law of applicant No. 2 lodged the FIR at PS Kotwali, Damoh against the applicants for the offence of section 498-A, 323 in alternate 323/34 of the IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per averments of the same, she got married with applicant No. 1 on dated 10.3.2011. Thereafter, for 3-4 times she remained with the applicant No. 1 in the matrimonial home where she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the applicants. It is further slated that at the time of marriage more than the capacity of her parental family, the dowry of Rs. 7 1/2 lacs was given to her. Thereafter Rs. 50,000/- was given to his matrimonial family to dig the tube-well. Again Rs. 1 lac fifty thousand was given to purchase some plot Thereafter to construct house on such plot, Rs. 1 lac and ten thousand was given. Inspite that the applicants came to her home situated at Guard Line Damoh and demanded Rs. 1 lac more. On asking them to sit and take the break fast then by refusing the same, they repeated demand of Rs. 1 lack and also abused her. On asking not to fulfill such demand then she was subjected to beating by the applicants by fists. She was rescued by her father Chhotelal Tiwari, her mother Smt. Asha Tiwari and her brother Nitin Tiwari and Ashish Tiwari. In such incident she sustained injuries. On such information, the report was registered and she was sent to hospital where after carrying out medical examination, her MLC report was prepared.

After holding the investigation, on establishing the ingredients of the above-mentioned offence against the applicants, they were charge sheeted for the same. On evaluation of the charge sheet by the trial court, the above-mentioned charges were framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt and thereafter, came to this court with this revision for quashment of the charges.

Shri J.A. Shah, learned counsel for the applicants after taking me through the copy of the charge-sheet available on the record along with copy of the impugned order and the framed charges said that even on taking into consideration the papers of the charge-sheet as accepted in its entirety even then the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the applicants. They have been implicated in the matter only on the false averments by concocting the story while, as alleged, no incident was never happened between the applicants and respondent No. 2/complainant. He also placed his reliance on earlier decision of this court in the matter of Dr. Anand Shrivastava and Others Vs. State of M.P., and in the matter of Kailash Chandra Maheshwari and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, and prayed for quashment of the impugned charge by allowing this revision.

On the other hand responding the aforesaid arguments, by referring the papers of the charge sheet including the FIR and the interrogatory statements of the witnesses, learned Panel lawyer submits that the impugned charges being in consonance of the charge sheet does not require any interference for quashment at this stage. It is further said that the case law cited by the applicants counsel is not applicable to the present case because the same were based on some proceedings of the divorce petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act which is not the situation in the case at hand. In continuation, he said that in cited case such findings were given taking into consideration either decree of divorce or pendency of such proceedings before the competent civil court and, in such premises, the criminal proceeding and the alleged charge framed against the concerning accused were quashed. In the lack of pendency of any divorce proceedings or the decree of competent court such cited cases being distinguishable are not helping to the applicants and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers of the charge sheet available on the record along with the impugned order and the averments of the revision memo so also the aforesaid case law cited by the applicants counsel.

On perusing of the FIR and the interrogatory statements of Smt. Bharti, the victim and her father Chhotelal Tiwari, mother Asha Tiwari, brothers Nitin Tiwari and Ashish Tiwari so also the MLC report of the victim according to which in the alleged incident some injuries were sustained by her, I have found sufficient prima facie evidence to show that subsequent to marriage, while residing in the matrimonial home, she was subjected to torture and cruelty on account of demand of dowry and there is also prima facie evidence to show that on various occasions such demands of the applicants in this regard were fulfilled by the parents of the respondent No. 2. There is also evidence in the charge sheet that on the date of the incident, the applicants went to her place and not only demanded the dowry but also abused and beaten her, on which she lodged the FIR on which after investigation, the applicants were charge sheeted. So, in such premises, I have not found any perversity in the order impugned to frame the alleged charge against the applicants.

It is apparent fact that in the case at hand on the date of incident neither the decree of divorce was in existence between the parties nor any such proceeding under such provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act was pending or sub-judice. So, in the lack of such decree or pendency of such proceeding between the parties, the above mentioned cited cases are not helping to the applicant because both the cases were decided either taking into consideration the existence of the decree of divorce or keeping in view the pendency of the petition for divorce between the parties under the provision of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

In the aforesaid case Anand Shrivastava (supra), the decree of divorce was in existence between the parties and on that basis it was held that the offence of section 498-A, 325 and 323 are not made out against the accused, which is not the situation in the case at hand.

In the aforesaid cited case Kailash Chandra (supra), the trial of the criminal case of section 498-A of the IPC was quashed taking into consideration that the concerning FIR or the complaint was lodged by the wife against the husband after filing the divorce petition, which is not the situation in the case at hand, therefore, on such cited decisions, the impugned charge sheet could not be quashed. It is settled proposition of the law that at the time of framing the charge, the trial court has not to consider the question whether the case would be culminated into conviction against the accused but the court has to examine only the prima facie circumstance from the charge sheet about the ingredients of the alleged offences if the same are made out then there is no option with the court except to frame the charges of such section against the accused like the applicants as laid down by the Apex court in the matter of Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, . So, in such premises also, the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage for quashment of the impugned charges framed against the applicants. Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.