Allahabad High Court
Smt. Jagmohini Gupta And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:27328
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6011 of 2023
Applicant :- Smt. Jagmohini Gupta And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuwan Raj, Rajnish Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,P.K. Singh, Utkarsh Khanna
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri I.K.Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Rajnish Dubey and Bhuwan Raj, Advocate for the applicants.
Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Utkarsh Khanna, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Vijay Kumar Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 10664 of 2022, State Vs. Jagmohini Gupta and others arising out of Case Crime No. 62 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sector-58, District Gautam Buddha Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Senior Division) Court no. 1, Gautam Buddha Nagar as well as chargesheet dated 09.12.2021 and 15.11.2022 and cognizance order dated 03.10.2022 passed in aforesaid case.
3. The allegations made in the FIR are summerzied as under:
(a) The informant Mrs. Harshil Mehta, is the wife of applicant no. 4, Harsh Mohan Gupta. Marriage of the informant was solemnized on 20.11.2018. She and her family were given to understand that her husband was employed as Assistant Manager at PWC, Gurgaon. He was drawing a lucrative salary. The applicants also stated that they will accept her even in two pairs of raiment. Applicants made demands of gift/dowry from her parents. Post registration of the marriage, applicants compelled the parents of the informant to organize a destination wedding for celebrating the marriage and asked to gift heavy gold and silver jewellery items to them. Applicant no. 1 has time and again quoted to the family of the informant that they had incurred about one crore rupees in the marriage of their daughter and their sons therefore, wedding should also be of the same status.
(b) Since the marriage was already registered, parents of the informant had no choice but to succumb to their demand and organize a three day function at Jim Corbett, Ramnagar. Gold and silver jewellery and gift items, as per the demands of the applicants were provided to them. During the reception, applicant no. 1 humiliated the mother of the informant for not providing sufficient jewellery.
(c) the informant moved to Australia with her husband Harsh Mohan Gupta. He started abusing and assaulting her physically and mentally. He used to call her fat and said that he desired for a pretty wife but married her for the sake of money. At one occasion he physically assaulted the informant in public place and thereafter apologised on being warned by his friends. In India, applicants no. 2 and 3 were continuously harassing the parents of the informant by demanding money. The applicants also compelled the informant and her parents to organize a 'Teej' function for them and demanded other expensive gifts for that occasion. The parents of the informant fulfilled their demands believing that the applicants would stop harassing their daughter.
(d) After few days the informant was thrown out from the house by Harsh Mohan Gupta. He forced her parents to call her back to India. The nature of Harsh Mohan Gupta was violent and aggressive towards the informant. On several occasions she approached the applicants but they always denied accepting her and refused to permit her to stay with them. Many times the informant requested her husband to come to India and resolve the issues between them, but he refused. Number of times she visited the house of her in-laws but every time she was thrown out of their house. They denied that she was a part of their family. They also refused to return the jewellery and 'Stridhan' of belonging to the informant.
(e) Due to the death of his father, Harsh Mohan Gupta came to India. The informant visited her husband and his family asking them to let her stay with them and accept her but they refused. They continued to harass her due to insufficient dowry/money. The 'Stridhan' and other articles given by the parents of the informant are in custody of the applicants.
4. On the basis of the FIR filed by opposite party no. 2, Case Crime No. 62 of 2021 under Sections 498A , 323, 504, 506,and 406 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered with Police Station Sector-58, Noida. The investigation was set into motion. After the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed only against applicant no. 1 Jagmohini Gupta under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation against Harsh Mohan Gupta, applicant no. 4 was kept pending. Applicant No. 2 and 3 were exonorated since their involvement was unfounded.
5. Thereafter, an application was moved by the informant before C.J.M. Gautambuddh Nagar claiming certain reliefs which interalia included monitoring the investigation to ensure fair, effective and speedy investigation.
6. This application was disposed of by the Court concerned vide its order dated 05.07.2022. It was observed that a case was already registered and the investigation was ongoing. The Investigating Officer was directed to conclude the investigation in accordance with law and to submit his report.
7. Thereafter, concluding the investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 406 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act came to be filed against all the applicants.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants argued that applicant no. 1 is the mother-in-law, applicant no. 2 is the sister-in-law (Nanad), applicant no. 3 is brother-in-law (Nandoi) and applicant no. 4 is the husband of opposite party no. 2.
9. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer without collecting any additional material or evidence against the applicant no. 2, 3 and 4 submitted chargesheet against them. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer did not collect any cogent evidence which can indicate the involvement of applicant no. 2, 3 and 4 in the incident.
10. Learned counsel vehemently argued that so far as the additional statements of the informant Harshil Maheshwari and Deepa Maheshwari (mother) as recorded by the Investigating Officer are concerned, these witnesses have made significant improvement in their statements as against their earlier statements on basis of which applicant no. 2 and 3 were exonerated. The Investigating Officer while submitting the chargesheet against applicant no. 2 and 3 did not indicate any reason for submitting chargesheet against all the applicants. It is also submitted that no medical report was made available by the informant to the Investigating Officer. It is a matrimonial dispute between a husband and a wife. Applicant no. 1, 2 and 3 are dragged in this case merely being family members.
11. He further submitted that the matter was referred to Mediation but it could not be materialised due to stubbornness of the informant. The applicants were always ready to resolve the issue on the basis of an amicable settlement. It is also submitted that general allegations were made by the informant against all the applicants. Applicant no. 3 is working at Gurgaon and resides with his wife applicant no. 2.
12. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Kahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599:
"11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.4, has observed:-
"14. Section 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 mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause 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 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. 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 complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.5, it was also observed:-
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 6, it has also been observed:-
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.7, 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."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana 8, 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."
17. 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, this 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."
13. Heavy reliance is placed upon the judgment of Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) SCC Online SC 1083. Following paragraphs are referred:
"12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others [Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:
'102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) 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."
14. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the absence of any specific role attributed to the applicants it would be unjust if the applicants are forced to go through tribulations of a trial. He emphasised that general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. A criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must be discouraged. It is further submitted that it is a case of misuse of section 498A IPC. The allegations made by the informant in her FIR are false, baseless and are not supported by any cogent evidence.
15. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Dharmendra Singhal appearing for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that apart from the statements of the informant and her mother Deepa Maheshwari, the statements of independent witnesses such as Rajkumar Bhatt and Rachna Dagra were also recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The informant, her mother Deepa Maheshwari, her father Jeevan Kishore Maheshwari, her friend Bhavna Sharma and other witnesses consistently supported the version of the prosecution. Specific role has been attributed to applicants for making regular demands of dowry from the informant and mentally and physically harassing her to meet such demands. The informant was dislodged from her house by applicant no. 4. She was subjected to cruelty on several occasions including at a public place in Australia.
16. It is submitted that so far as the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against applicant no. 2 and 3 is concerned, they being sister-in-law and brother-in-law actively participated with applicant no. 1 and 4 in harassing the informant, making dowry demand and treating the informant with cruelty. During their statements, applicant no. 2 and 3 stated that they never visited the house of applicant no. 4 during the matrimonial period of the informant. Infact, applicant no. 3 did not even attend their marriage since he was attending to his father who was suffering with cancer. Applicant no. 2 and 3 admitted that they had received golden jewellery given by the parents of the informant. Therefore, it cannot be said that they were not involved in the incident and are innocent.
17. Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently argued that in this matter the marriage was registered prior to formal celebration of marriage. It was celebrated at Jim Corbett Park, Ramnagar for which huge expenses were incurred by the parents of the informant. The entire 'stridhan' including the jewellery and the gifts of the informant are in custody of the applicants. During the first round of investigation, the witnesses of prosecution had stated about the involvement and role of each applicant in the incident. Therefore, there is no significant improvement in their subsequent statements.
18. He further submitted that independent witnesses Rajkumar Bhatt and Rachna Dagra also stated about the specific role of each applicant. Applicant no. 4 never co-operated with the Investigating Officer and a look out notice was issued against him. Besides this, a notice for impounding his passport was also issued by the competent authority on the basis of the registration of present case.
19. It is also argued that opposite party no. 2 initiated proceedings under Domestic Violence Act against the applicants before Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi and after evaluating the presented evidence the court has taken cognizance of the matter. Applicants No. 2 and 3 were frequent visitors to the matrimonial house and were integral members of the household. During the investigation, it came to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer that they frequently visited the house of applicant no. 1.
20. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that trustworthiness of the statements of the witnesses cannot be examined at this stage. The Court cannot conduct mini trial before the trial. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Manik B Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & anr., Criminal Appeal No. Of 2023 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2924 of 2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
"6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.
7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all."
21. The Investigating Officer, after submission of chargesheet against applicant no. 1, proceeded with the investigation further and recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses.
22. Opposite party no. 2 Harshil Gupta, during her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., made certain allegations of demand of dowry, gold jewellery, precious gifts and cloths by the applicants. She made specific allegations against each applicant about their role in the incident. Applicant no. 1 used to make frequent demand of dowry and pass sarcastic comments against the informant. She asked her to fulfil the demand of valuable articles for herself and for her family. On 01.09.2019, in Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, applicant no. 2 slapped her since one of the utensils was not properly cleaned by her. She said that the informant was a burden on their family. She also said that she needs money from the parents of the informant every month. When the informant resisted this demand, she poured hot vegetable over her hands. On 23.01.2020, on the occasion of marriage anniversary of applicant no. 1, a demand of diamond ring was made from the informant. Her father-in-law passed away on 26.11.2020. When the informant visited there, the applicants commented upon her that her father-in-law did not die due to COVID-19 and she had come without any dowry. On 29.11.2020, when she visited the house of her in-laws in Punjabi Bagh, her husband twisted her hand, applicant no. 2 pulled her hair, and applicant no. 3 kicked her. She was dislodged from her the house and all her belongings were kept by them. She was physically and mentally tortured by the applicants. On account of the behaviour of the applicants she remained scared always.
23. Mrs. Deepa Maheshwar and Rachna Dagra, the mother and aunt (mami) of the informant respectively, in their statements given to the Investigating Officer corroborated the version of the prosecution as well as the allegations made by the opposite party no. 2 in her statement about the demand of dowry, cruelty, harassment, mental and physical torture of the informant.
24. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Rajkumar Bhatt as an independent witness who stated that he was well known to the informant and was having familiar relations with her. He attended each and every function and was a part of every event of the marriage. During his statement, he stated about the active role of the applicants in making additional demand of dowry, precious gifts, cloths and other articles from the informant. The applicants used to harass the informant and treated her with cruelty for not fulfilling their demands. The informant was physically assaulted by them. During his statement, he supported the statements made by the informant.
25. It is pertinent to mention here that the informant initiated proceedings under Domestic Violence Act against the applicants in Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. In this matter, on the basis of evidence produced by the informant the learned Court had taken cognizance against the applicants. It is also noteworthy that in spite of several rounds of mediation the dispute could not be resolved.
26. In view of the above, prima facie evidence is available on record against the applicants such as the statements of the informant, her mother Deepa Maheshwari, her father Jeevan Kishore Maheshra, her friend Bhavna Sharma, independent witnesses Rajkumar Bhatt and Mrs. Rachna Dagra who consistently supported the version of the prosecution and statement of the informant. These witnesses elaborately described the active participation of the each applicant in the incident. They stated that the informant was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of additional dowry. She was ousted from the house of her husband and was not permitted to live in her matrimonial house. All the applicants harassed her and committed cruelty with informant. She was physically and mentally tortured by all the applicants.
27. In view of the above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.
28. Accordingly, Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
29. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 5.2.2024
Mohit Kushwaha
