Vijay And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr.

This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11/05/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori in Criminal Case No.209/2018, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class framed the charge against the applicants/accused Vijay Gupta, Dinesh Gupta and Neerajlata for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.

Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this revision are that on 30/01/2018 complainant/respondent No.2 Pooja Gupta lodged a report at Police Station Kajariya, District Dindori averring that she married applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta on 17/02/2016 at Gayatri Shakti Peeth, Amarkantak, District-Anuppur. Thereafter, she lived with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta-husband, applicant No.2 Dinesh-father-in-law and applicant No.3-Neerajlata mother-in-law. After ten days of her marriage behaviour of the applicants changed with her. They used to demand Rs.3 lakhs and harassed her physically and mentally. Due to which she moved from her in-law's house and started living in a rented house with her husband applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta. Currently, she is seven to eight months' pregnant. Two months ago, her husband left her and went to live with his parents and is not even arranging for her maintenance. Her parents-in-law are also supporting her husband and they are harassing her. Her parents are poor and cannot fulfill the applicants' demand. For this reason, applicants have been harassing her for almost 2 years. She is currently pregnant and needs support but applicants are trying to drive her away from the rented house too. She is very ill-treated by the applicants. So action be taken against them. On that police registered Crime No.11/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC against the applicants and investigated the matter. During the investigation, Police recorded the statements of the complainant herself, Balmukund & Sumitra Gupta, parents of the complainant, Savitri Bai landlord of complainant Pooja Gupta where she resided with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta, Dasrath Prasad, Ramnarayan Sahu and Devan neighbour of the complainant and after investigation filed charge-sheet against the applicants. On that charge-sheet Criminal Case, No.209/2018 was registered. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class framed charge against the applicants vide order dated 11/05/2019 for the offence punishable 498-A, 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved from that order, applicants have filed this revision.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that from the F.I.R. no offence under Section 498-A, 34 of IPC is made out against the applicants. In F.I.R. there is no specific allegation against the applicants regarding demand of dowry and harassment. The marriage of applicant Vijay Gupta and complainant was performed at Gayatri Shakti Peeth, Amarkantak, District Anuppur on 17/02/2016. At the time of marriage complainant/respondent No.2 had filed an application and also sworn an affidavit indicating that she was unmarried and her marriage has never taken place earlier. Thereafter marriage of applicant No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized as per Hindu customs & rituals and marriage certificate of the same was issued by Gayatri Shakti Peeth, Amarkantak, District Anuppur after performing the marriage. After, marriage complainant lived in the company of applicants, but the behaviour of the respondent No.2/complainant was not good with the applicants. The respondent No.2/complainant used to quarrel with the applicants No.2 and 3 and used to assault the applicant No.3, due to which applicants No.2 and 3 asked the applicant No.1 and complainant to live separately from the company of applicants No.2 and 3. On that applicant, No.1 started living separately along with the complainant in a rented house. But the behaviour of the complainant did not change and she used to threaten applicants to implicate them in a false criminal case. Feeling aggrieved by the attitude of the complainant, the applicant No.1 lodged a report against her on 30/9/2016 at P.S. Karanjiya, District-Dindori. He further submitted that in the meantime it was revealed that before marrying the applicant No.1, complainant had already married with one Kamlesh Gupta, resident of Hanumantal, Jabalpur and without getting a valid divorce from Kamlesh Gupta, complainant performed marriage with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta by suppressing this fact. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since the complainant was a married lady and she performed second marriage with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta, without getting divorce from her earlier husband, applicant No.1 filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No.2/complainant and her parents under Section 420, 500/34 of the IPC and also filed a Civil Case 78A/2016 under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage in the court of Principal Judge Family Court, Dindori. Learned Principal Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 09/11/2017 allowed the applicant's petition and declared the marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant null and void. Thereafter, the complainant filed this false complaint against the applicants to harass them. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be quashed. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkumar Sarathe and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another in M.Cr.C.No.15859/2017 decided on 23/1/2018 and another judgement passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Uday Narayan and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in 2017 (IV) MPJR (SC) 107.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, only charge-sheet has to be seen and from the charge-sheet it is apparent that the applicants who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 respectively used to harass her and demanded dowry, so learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing the charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of the IPC. Respondent No.2/complainant performed marriage with the applicant No.1 suppressing the fact that she was already married, or her behaviour was not good with the applicants and she harassed the applicants and lodged a false report against the applicants is the defence of the applicants which cannot be considered at this stage because it requires evidence to decide. Hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed.

This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

Hon'ble Apex Court in his judgment passed in Hem Chand Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2008) 5 SCC 113 has held that at the stage of framing of charge, Court exercises a limited jurisdiction. It has to see whether prima facie case has been made out or not, concerned of the Court should be to see whether the case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during the investigation. It would ordinarily not consider whether accused would be able to establish his defence if any. In Bharat Parikh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 10 SCC 109 also held while framing charge the trial Court can only look into the materials produced by the prosecution while giving an opportunity to the accused to show that the said materials were insufficient for the purpose of framing charge. At the stage of framing of charge, the submissions on behalf of the accused have to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency. in Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403 held at the stage of framing of charge- Material brought on record has to be accepted true. In-State Of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2003 SC 1512 Hon'ble apex court considered the matter in detail and held that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be considered. In the matter of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2013) 11 SCC 476, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while reiterating the law laid down in Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), have clearly held that at the time of framing charge, the accused is entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by the prosecution, he is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the Court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted.

Which shows that at the time of framing of a charge what the trial court is required to, and can, consider only the police report referred to under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents sent with it. For framing of charge strong suspicion about the commission of the offence and accused's involvement of offence is sufficient. On merits, Materials/ documents filed by accused can not be considered. The material produced by prosecution alone is to be considered. Roving inquiry and mini-trial is not permissible. Defence of accused is not relevant. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. Accused is competent to make his submissions only on the material supplied by the prosecution.

In the instant case, it is apparent from the record that after investigation of the report lodged by non-applicant No.2 Police found prima facie case against the applicants and filed charge sheet against them. In the F.I.R. it is clearly mentioned that applicants used to demand Rs.3 lakhs and harassed complainant physically and mentally this fact is also corroborated by the case diary statements of Balmukund & Sumitra Gupta, parents of the complainant, Savitri Bai, landlord of complainant Pooja Gupta in her house she resided with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta, Dasrath Prasad, Ramnarayan Sahu and Devan neighbour of the complainant. So, offence under Section 498-A of IPC is prima facie made out against the applicants. Whether the allegations levelled by non-applicant No.2 in the F.I.R. are true or not cannot be ascertained at this stage on evaluating the prosecution evidence on the merits. Although applicants also filed some documents showing the fact that earlier the marriage of complainant was solemnized with one Kamlesh and without getting divorce from Kamlesh she married applicant No. 1 Vijay Gupta, those documents can not be considered at this stage because the evidence is required to prove these documents. Applicants have also filed copy of judgement dated 09/11/2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dindori in Civil Case No.78-A/2016, whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court declared marriage of the applicant No.1 Vijay with complainant Pooja Gupta void on the basis that at the time when Pooja Gupta married with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta, she was already married to one Kamlesh, the resident of Jabalpur but the said judgement is ex-parte judgement and learned counsel for the applicants is not in a position to inform the Court whether said judgement is still in existence or not, whether complainant has filed any application before Family Court to set aside that expert judgement or not. So that judgements also can not be considered at this stage.

The facts of the cases Ramkumar Sarathe and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Uday Narayan and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants do not match with the present case. In the first case, the coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings of a criminal case on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur had no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case against the petitioners. While in this case it is alleged that the harassment of complainant was committed by the applicants in the territorial jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori and police also filed charge-sheet before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori. In the second case, the coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the proceeding of a criminal case against the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant on the ground that they resided at Ajmer. While in this case applicant No.2 father-in-law and applicant No.3 mother-in-law of the complainant allegedly reside in the same town, so these judgements do not help the applicant.

In the considered opinion of this court, the ground raised by the applicants in this revision is the defence of the applicants and requires evidence to decide and can not be considered at this stage. From the charge sheet, prima facie offence under section 498-A of the IPC is made out against the applicants. So learned trial court did not commit any mistake in framing charges against the applicants for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC.

Hence, this revision is dismissed with the liberty that the applicants are free to raise their all objections before trial Court at the appropriate stage.

Certified copy as per rules.