Prem Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1018 MP

   1      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020
       Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

Gwalior, Dated:24/03/2021

       Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the applicants.

       Smt. Uma Kushwaha, Counsel for the State.

       Shri V.D. Sharma, Counsel for the respondent no.2.

       With the consent of the parties, the case is finally heard.

       This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

against the order dated 19-2-2020 passed by Xth Additional Sessions

Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.23/2019, thereby affirming

the order dated 10-12-2018 passed by J.M.F.C., Gwalior in Criminal

Case No.1543 of 2018, by which the application filed by the

applicants under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

       The undisputed fact is that the applicant no.1 is the uncle-in-

law and applicant no.2 is the unmarried sister-in-law (Nanad) of the

complainant.

       The facts necessary for disposal of the present application in

short are that on 19-4-2018, the complainant lodged a F.I.R. against

the applicants as well as against her other in-laws alleging that, her

marriage with Virendra Chandel, took place on 18-11-2013. Her

father had given an amount of Rs.6 lacs in engagement, gold ring to

her husband, gold ornaments of Rs.2 lacs, Rs.1 lac at the time of

arrival of barat and Rs.2 lac at the time of departure of barat, Rs.

40,000/- for purchasing articles. Her father also spent Rs.1 lac for
    2      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020
       Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

giving cloths to the persons who had attended the engagement and

also spent Rs.1,70,000/- on marriage and in all, her father spent Rs.20

lacs in the marriage of the complainant. It was alleged that

immediately after the marriage, her husband, mother in law Smt.

Pista Devi, the applicant no.2, her younger brothers-in-law (Devar)

Ranjeet and Ravi, father-in-law Suresh Kumar and the applicant no.1

started passing taunts that the complainant has brought less dowry

and started harassing her mentally and physically. They also stated

that unless and until She brings an additional dowry of Rs.5 lacs, she

will not be able to reside peacefully. When the complainant informed,

that her father is a retired employee and has spent the entire retiral

fund in the marriage of the complainant, then her in-laws started

harassing the complainant. The husband of the complainant is

generally residing in Bhopal, however, he was compelling the

complainant to reside in her matrimonial house. Her in-laws used to

lock her in a room and also were not providing food. They also used

to pass a taunt, that they have brought her for doing household work,

therefore, She would do all those things which are desired by them.

The complainant must forget about her studies. Her in-laws were not

permitting her to talk to anybody. Whenever She fell ill, medical

treatment was not provided. When the complainant became pregnant,

then She was forcibly sent to her parental home. The expenses of
    3      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020
       Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

delivery were borne by her father. On 9-9-2014, the complainant

gave birth to a girl child, however, none of her in-laws visited the

hospital. Thereafter, the complainant was not allowed to live

peacefully and was continuously harassed. They also used to extend a

threat that unless and until She brings the dowry of Rs.5 lacs, they

will kill her and her child. Accordingly, she had made an application

against her husband and her in-laws. Her husband was called for re-

conciliation purposes, but the matter could not be resolved. On 22-3-

2018, her husband Virendra Chandel, father-in-law Suresh Chandel,

Mother-in-law Smt. Pista Chandel, brothers-in-law Ravi and Ranjeet

came to her parental home and again started demanding Rs.5 lacs.

They also expressed, that unless and until, their demand is fulfilled,

they will continue to harass her. When the complainant and her father

expressed their inability to fulfill their demand of dowry, then they

started abusing and beating her. They also misbehaved with her

mother. When the neighbourers came on the spot, these persons went

away. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

       The police, after completing the investigation, filed charge

sheet against the applicants and other co-accused persons, for offence

under Sections 498A, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

       The applicants filed an application under Section 239 of
    4      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020
       Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

Cr.P.C. for their discharge.

        The Trial Magistrate by order dated 10-12-2018, rejected the

application and fixed the case for arguments on the question of

framing of charges.

        Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants, preferred a

Criminal Revision which was registered as Cr.R. No.23/2019, which

too has been rejected by the Revisional Court by order dated 19-2-

2020.

        Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is

submitted by the Counsel for the applicants, that the applicant no.1 is

the uncle-in-law and applicant no.2 is the unmarried sister-in-law of

the complainant. The applicant no.1 is residing separately, whereas

the applicant no.2 is prosecuting her studies in Bhopal and have been

falsely implicated, only because of the fact that they are the near and

dear relatives of the complainant. False allegations have been made

in order to mount pressure on the husband of the complainant. It is

further submitted that it is a well established principle of law, that in

order to prosecute the near and dear relative, the allegations must be

specific and should not be omnibus or vague in nature.

        Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

Counsel for the State and the complainant. It is submitted by the

Counsel for the complainant, that right from the very beginning, the
    5      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020
       Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

applicants were harassing the complainant for demand of Rs.5 lacs.

       Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

       Before considering the allegations made against the applicants,

this Court thinks it apposite to consider the law governing the field of

prosecution of near and dear relatives of the husband for offence

under Sections 498A of I.P.C. etc.

       The Supreme Court in the case of Kansraj Vs. State of

Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, has held as under :

       "In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance
       in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence
       that Respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the
       ground of being close relations of Respondent 2, the
       husband of the deceased. For the fault of the husband, the
       in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held
       to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where
       such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to
       persons other than the husband are required to be proved
       beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and
       implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the
       offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has,
       however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-
       laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths
       which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of
       the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their
       over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for
       maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been
       found to be making efforts for involving other relations
       which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even
       against the real accused as appears to have happened in
       the instant case."

       The Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy Vs. State of

West Bengal, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693, has held as under:
 6      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020
    Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

    "8.While we do not find any ground to interfere with the
    view taken by the courts below that the deceased was
    subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfillment of
    dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that
    possibility of naming all the family members by way of
    exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj v. State of
    Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, this Court observed : (SCC p.
    215, para 5)
       "5.........A tendency has, however, developed for
       roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased
       wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
       discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the
       prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over
       enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for
       maximum people, the parents of the deceased have
       been found to be making efforts for involving other
       relations which ultimately weaken the case of the
       prosecution even against the real accused as appears
       to have happened in the instant case."
    The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant
    relatives without there being specific material. Only the
    husband, his parents or at best close family members may
    be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but
    not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to
    support allegations made against such distant relations.
    Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to
    summon them in absence of any specific role and material
    to support such role.
    9. In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 15
    SCC 415, it was observed : (SCC p. 419, para 14)
       "14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5
       Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased
       Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the
       deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told
       them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal
       Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his
       wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is
       possible that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana
       Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide
       as often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A
       and 394 IPC, as has been observed in several
       decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh Panjiyar v.
       State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388], etc. Hence, we
    7      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020
       Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

          allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi
          and set aside the impugned judgments of the High
          Court and the trial court insofar as it relates to them
          and we direct that they be released forthwith unless
          required in connection with some other case."
                               ******

11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation against all family members particularly against brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named members."

The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors. v. State

of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155 has held as

under:-

"8. We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view. However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020 Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3."

The Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao and others

Vs. State of Telangana reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 has held as

under :

5. A perusal of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet discloses the fact that the appellants are not the immediate family members of the third respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third respondent who was harassing the second respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge- sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court.

6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. 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. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P.

    9      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020

Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

In the case of Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported

in AIR 2010 SC 3363 it has been held by the Supreme Court as

under:

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised 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 the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the 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 complainant are required to be scrutinised 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 an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

* *

39. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles set out in the preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020 Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.

In the case of Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti reported

in (2009) 10 SCC 184, it has been held by the Supreme Court, as

under :

9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and end all of the matter. 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 committing of that offence.

10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.

The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State

of U.P. Reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 has held as under :

20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names which have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a 11 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020 Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.

21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad 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: (SCC p. 698, para 12) "12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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 that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.

Thus, it is clear that unless and until, there are specific

allegations against the near, dear or distant relative of the husband,

the relatives should not be compelled to go through the ordeal of

trial. The vague and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to rope 12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020 Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

the near and dear relatives of the husband in a criminal case.

If the allegations made against the applicants are considered,

then it is clear that except casual reference of their names in the first

part of the F.I.R., to the effect that they had also harassed the

complainant for bringing additional dowry of Rs.5 lacs, no other

specific allegation has been made against them. It is not the case of

the complainant, that the applicants had also come to her parental

home on 22-3-2018.

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the

allegations which have been made against the applicants are omnibus

and vague and are not sufficient to compel the applicants who are

uncle-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law of the complainant, to

undergo the ordeal of criminal prosecution.

Accordingly, the orders dated 19-2-2020 passed by Xth

Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Cr.R. No.23/2019 and order

dated 10-12-2018 passed by J.M.F.C., Gwalior in Criminal case

No.1543 of 2018 are hereby set aside.

The charge sheet filed against the applicants for offence under

Section 498A, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act is hereby quashed and the applicants are hereby

discharged of offence under Sections 498A, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and

under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, their 13 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.37680/2020 Prem Kumar and another Vs. State of M.P. and another

prosecution in Criminal Case No.1543 of 2018, which is pending in

the Court of J.M.F.C., Gwalior, is hereby Quashed.

The application succeeds and is hereby Allowed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.03.25 14:57:25 +05'30'