Excerpt:
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
(SINGLE BENCH : HONâBLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P.GUPTA)
M.Cr.C No.16841/2017
Kaustubh Choubey & others
Vs.
State of M.P & another
e sh
Shri Shreyas Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants.
ad
Shri Manish Awasthy, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Pr
Shri S.D Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
a
hy
Whether approved for reporting : (Yes/No).
ad
ORDER
M ( 01 .02.2018) of This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed for rt quashment of the proceeding of Regular Criminal Trial No.1961/2017 ou pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar under C sections 498A, 406, 294, 506, 354(C), 34 of IPC and sections 3 & 4 of h Dowry Prohibition Act, on the basis of FIR lodged by the respondent ig no.2.
H
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the applicant no.1/Kaustubh Choubey marriage was solemnized with the respondent no.2/Jyoti Choubey on 29/01/2016 at Bhopal. The applicant no.2 and 3 are father-in-law and maternal aunt of the applicant no.1 respectively.
Against the applicants on 19/04/2017, the respondent no.2 made a complaint to Police Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Sagar that the applicants in connection with the demand of Rs.30 lacs in dowry are torturing and harassing her and also took her stridhan and thrown her out of the house and presently she is living in her parental house. The efforts of Police Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Sagar remained unsuccessful and the respondent no.2 emphasize to take criminal action against the applicants, then Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sagar registered Crime No. 24/2017 under aforesaid sections against the applicants and after completion of the investigation filed sh charge sheet against the applicants and learned trial court took the e ad cognizance and the proceeding is pending in the concerned trial court, Pr which is under challenge in this petition.
a
3. The applicants have challenged the proceedings on the ground that hy all the allegations made in the complaint against the applicants are ad false. The respondent no.2 is suffering from âepilepsyâ since M childhood and without disclosing this fact her marriage with the of applicant no.1 was solemnized by her parents. When after her rt marriage she remained idle, lazy and prevented applicant with ou cohabitation and abnormal behaviour, it was disclosed that she is C suffering some serious aliment. On medical examination, it was h revealed that she was suffering from âepilepsyâ and since 2002 ig she is getting regular treatment and on revealing of this fact, the H respondent no.2 leave the house of the applicant no.1 and residing with her parents. On getting notice from the Police Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Sagar, the applicant expressed his willingness to take the respondent no.2 with him on the condition that she will admit in writing that she was suffering from âepilepsyâ disease and made allegation falsely against the applicants with regard to demand of dowry and harassment but such admission was not made in writing. Therefore applicant did not take her with him and on behalf of the applicant no.1 on account of non-disclosure of the disease and cruel behaviour of the respondent no.2, the application under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Family Court Bhopal on 03/11/2016, which was withdrawn with the liberty to file petition for divorce on 29/04/2017 and thereafter petition under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 05/05/2017 against the sh respondent no.2. Thereafter as a counter blast false allegations have e ad been made. It is also submitted that the applicant no.3 is maternal aunt Pr of the applicant no.1, she is married and resides at Karnataka and just a to create pressure on the applicant no.1 she has been falsely hy implicated in the case, which expose ill intention of the respondent ad no.2. Apparently the allegation has been made against the applicant M with a view to wreck vengeance or counter blast stating vague and of general allegation hiding the real fact of the dispute. In this case rt learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has place reliance on a ou judgment delivered by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in Misc. C Criminal Case No.3658 of 2016 on 9.3.2017 (Parties being h Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ig anr.), in which, the proceedings against relatives of the husband were H have been quashed on the ground that allegations against them are vague and omnibus and they resided at different places. Hence the proceeding of the criminal case be quashed. If the proceeding is continued, it would amount to misuse of the process of the law and cause grave injustice to the applicants.
4. The learned Government Advocate and counsel for the respondent no.2 have opposed the aforesaid contentions and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it reveals that the marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized on 29/01/2016 and complaint to Police Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Sagar has been lodged on 19/04/2017. Between this period, on medical examination it was found that the respondent no.2 was suffering from chronic disease of âepilepsyâ and on sh behalf of the applicant no.1 on 03/11/2016 petition under section 12 of e ad the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Family Court, Bhopal Pr alleging laziness and abnormal behaviour and suffering from a âepilepsyâ and non-disclosure of aforesaid facts at the time of hy marriage and having no interest in cohabitation with the applicant no.1 ad and giving threatening of implication in false criminal case and the M proceeding of the Court shows that the notice was served to the of respondent no.2 in the month of December, 2016. The proceeding of rt Police Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Sagar (Annexure A/7) also reveals ou the fact that the respondent no.2 admitted her fault about her C misbehaviour with the applicant no.1 and in-laws and admitted her h disease and ready to go with the applicant no.1 and there was no ig dispute with regard to demand of dowry and any harassment or torture H given by the applicants and thereafter the applicant no.1 has filed petition for divorce on 05/05/2017. It is also apparent from the record that the applicant no.3 is a married lady residing with her husband at District Bellary in Karnataka. Therefore, the applicant no.3 has no occasion to harass and torture the respondent no.2 in connection with demand of dowry and apparently she has been falsely implicated to take revenge with the applicant no.1.
6. In view of this Court in the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention of the applicants have a substance and there is no material on record to suggest or to indicate the fact that the applicants harassed and tortured the respondent no.2.
7. 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 sh the same, the High court could not have thrown its arms in the air and e ad expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 of Pr Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice. Hon’ble the Apex court in the a recent judgment, Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U.P. And hy anr., passed in criminal appeal no. 1265/2017 dated 27.7.2017 as ad observed in para 14, as under :-
M
14. âSection 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 of mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression âcrueltyâin Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause rt 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 ou 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.
C 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 h complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled ig for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.â. H
8. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie it appears that there is no dispute with regard to demand of dowry and torture and harassment by the applicants. Real cause of the dispute is non-
disclosure of chronic disease of âepilepsyâ before the marriage of the respondent no.2 and lazy and unsupporting behaviour of the respondent no.2 that is why the applicant no.1 filed petition earlier for declaration of nullity of marriage and later on for divorce with the respondent no.2, which is pending. In this background, the respondent no.2 has made false allegation with malice intention. Prima facie it is misuse of the process of court. Hence the petition is allowed and proceeding of Regular Criminal Trial No.1961/2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar against the applicants are quashed.
sh A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court concerned for e ad information.
Pr (J.P.Gupta) JUDGE a tarun/ hy ad Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR M SALUNKE Date:
2018.02.0 13:13:39 +05’30’ of rt ou C h ig H
Fight against Legal Terrorism 