Smt. Maqsudan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 10577 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17725 of 2017
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Maqsudan And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

1. Despite notice served personally, none present on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and no counter affidavit has been filed till date.

2. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material available on record.

3. This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 27.07.2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 607 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Najibabad, District- Bijnaur, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Najibabad, District- Bijnaur.

4. It is contended that proceedings in respect of applicant no.2- Ifekhar (husband) has already been dismissed vide order dated 30.5.2017. The prayer is therefore, confined only with regard to applicant no.1 Smt. Maqsudan, who is mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2.

5. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. vide Case Crime No. 607 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been lodged by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the marriage of the applicant no.2 was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 06.01.2013 according to Muslim customs, the mother and brothers of the opposite no.2 had given goods worth about ten lakh rupees as a gift in the marriage. Husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 were not happy with the goods and after few days of marriage, they started demanding an Alto car and two lakh rupees in cash in dowry and they started torturing the opposite party no.2 mentally and physically for bringing less dowry. It is also alleged that about three months ago, the accused persons assaulted the opposite party no.2 and threw her out of the house in a miserable condition saying that bring an Alto car and two lakh rupees in cash from her mother's house and if you come to our house without Alto Car and two lakh rupees, you will be killed. On 11.5.2016 at around 9.00 am, accused applicants along with other family members came to the house of the mother of the opposite party no.2, at that time the opposite party no.2 was alone at home, the applicants and other family members started abusing and said that we had sent you to buy Alto car and Rs 2 lakh and you came and sat here. She was punched and beaten with sticks and Shabina (sister-in-law) started strangling the opposite party no.2 with the intention of killing her. When the opposite party no.2 raised an alarm, Akil, Javed and many other people of the village came who saw the incident and started talking to the applicants, and thereafter, the accused applicants threatened her that if she comes to their house without taking the Alto car and two lakh rupees, she would be killed. Investigation was carried and subsequent to investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act whereupon learned Magistrate took cognizance on 15.11.2016.

6. Learned counsel for applicant, vehemently, submitted that allegations against applicant no.1, who is mother-in-law, aged about 60 years, are vague and general; as per the F.I.R and statement of the opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., general role has been assigned to all the family members of the applicants; applicant no.1 (mother-in-law) has never demanded any dowry from the opposite party no.2 or her parents; she has been been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2012 (10) SCC 741.

7. I have heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the paper-book.

8. Perusal of the record discloses that entire version of the complainant in FIR was vague in respect of the present applicant.

9. The marriage of complainant was solemnized on 06.01.2013. It is stated that after marriage husband and other family members started maltreating, misbehaving, raising demand of more dowry etc. The complainant was statedly turned out of matrimonial home. All the allegations levelled against the applicant no.1 (mother in law) are general in nature and no specific allegations are there against the present applicant. She has been implicated only on the basis of general allegations. It appears that the name of the present applicant no.1 (mother in law) has been mentioned in the complaint just to falsely implicate her without any specific instance of cruelty.

10. From above version of the complainant as highlighted above, it is very much clear that allegations against applicant no.1 (mother-in-law) are quite vague and general. There is no specific incident as to what actually was done by applicant no.1 (mother in law) or whether she made a specific demand of dowry or about the date of incidents qua her.

11. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. (supra), it was observed:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao Vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

12. Recently, in K. Subba Rao Vs. The State of Telangana (2018 14 SCC 452), it was also observed that:-

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."

13. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, the Apex Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

14. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 02.06.2016, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the applicants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against the applicant no.1. Applicant no.1 has not been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against her. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus.

15. In view of the above, present application is allowed qua applicant no.1 (mother-in-law). The proceedings of Case Crime No. 607 of 2016 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A I.P.C., and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnaur pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Najibabad, District Bijnaur are quashed.

Order Date :- 11.4.2023

Krishna*