Madhya Pradesh High Court

Satish Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 19 April, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      MCRC-10219-2017
       Satish Verma and others Vs. State of MP and another

Gwalior, Dated : 20/04/2022

      Shri V.K. Sahu, Counsel for the applicants.

      Shri PPS Vajeeta, Counsel for the respondent No. 1/State.

Shri Yogendra Shrivastava, Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for

quashment of FIR registered in Crime No.115/2017 at Police Station

Kotwali District Morena for offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read

with Section 34 of IPC. The applicant No. 1 is husband, applicant No.

2 is mother-in-law, applicant No. 3 is brother-in-law and applicant No.

4 is maternal father-in-law of the complainant Kusum Prajapti.

2. Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR that she got married to the

applicant No. 1 on 17.04.2003 in accordance with Hindu rites and

rituals and her parents had given adequate dowry as per their financial

status. For some time, she was kept properly by the applicants No. 1

and 2, but thereafter the applicants started demanding a gold chain of

2 tola and motorcycle. When she informed them that her parents are

not in a position to give further dowry, then all the four applicants

used to harass her physically by beating her. During this time,

respondent No. 2 gave birth to a child namely Akshita who at present

is aged about 3 ½ years. Panchayat was also convened by her brother

Dhara Singh and had requested the applicants that they are not in a

position to fulfill their demand of gold chain and motorcycle and

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-10219-2017 Satish Verma and others Vs. State of MP and another

requested that they should not harass the respondent No. 2, but even

then the applicants did not improve their conduct and continued to

harass her mentally and physically. Accordingly, on 05.02.2017 she

has been ousted from her matrimonial house with a direction that if

she brings the motorcycle, only then her husband would come to take

her back. When it was objected by her, then she was beaten by fists

and kicks at her parental home by her husband applicant No. 1. It was

further alleged that after leaving respondent No. 2 in her parental

home, the applicant No. 1 took away her daughter Akshita. The police

registered the FIR in question.

3. The applicants have taken a ground that in fact, it was the

respondent No. 2 whose behaviour towards her in-laws was very cruel

and she herself had left the house of the applicants on 14.12.2015 and

expressed her intention not to come back. A complaint was also made

by the applicant No. 1 to Mahila Paramarsh Kendra, Devas praying to

call his wife and hold a mediation, but all the efforts went in vain.

When the applicant No. 1 realized that the marriage is irretrievably

broken down, then he filed an application under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act and ex parte judgment and decree has been

passed. Marital ties have been broken. It is submitted that just prior to

passing an ex parte decree, the respondent lodged the report on

10.02.2017 with a solitary intention to counterblast filing of divorce

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-10219-2017 Satish Verma and others Vs. State of MP and another

petition. The allegations are false. However, it is submitted that the

Trial is in progress and recording of evidence is going on. It is further

submitted that the allegations against the applicant No. 4 who is

maternal grand father and resident of Malanpur District Bhind are

false and the applicant No. 3 has been implicated because he is

younger brother of the applicant No. 1.

4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant. It is

submitted by the counsel for the applicants that against ex parte

decree, the respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Order 9

Rule 13 of CPC, but it has been dismissed in default. However, he

could not justify as to how the lodging of FIR after filing of divorce

petition can be said to be a counterblast to the divorce petition.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari

Devi and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held as under:-

"14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived at by the High Court while quashing the FIR, it is apparent that the High Court had relied on extraneous considerations and acted beyond the allegations made in the FIR for quashing the same in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. We have already noted the illustrations enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case and from a careful reading of these illustrations, we are of the view that the allegations emerging from the FIR are not covered by any of the illustrations as noted hereinabove. For example, we may take up one of the findings of the High Court as noted herein above. The High Court has drawn an

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-10219-2017 Satish Verma and others Vs. State of MP and another

adverse inference on account of the FIR being lodged on 31st December, 2001 while the appellant was forced out of the matrimonial home on 25th May, 2001.

15. In our view, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant- wife for lodging the FIR on 31st December, 2001 on the ground that she had left the matrimonial home atleast six months before that. This is because, in our view, the High Court had failed to appreciate that the appellant and her family members were, during this period, making all possible efforts to enter into a settlement so that the respondent No.2-husband would take her back to the matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during this period, there was every possibility of not entering into any settlement with the respondent No.2- husband.

16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and the respondent No.2- husband had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in our view, filing of a divorce petition in a Civil Court cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code as it is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise out of the same set of facts. Such being the position, we are, therefore, of the view that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by relying on extraneous considerations."

5.1. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs.

State of W.B. and others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 555 has held as

under:-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-10219-2017 Satish Verma and others Vs. State of MP and another

"15. We have already noticed that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. Whereas in civil proceedings the matter can be decided on the basis of probabilities, the criminal case has to be decided by adopting the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt". A Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with similar circumstances, in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [AIR 1954 SC 397 : 1954 Cri LJ 1019] held that where civil and criminal cases are pending, precedence shall be given to criminal proceedings. Detailing the reasons for the conclusions, the Court held: (AIR p. 399, paras 15-16) "15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.

16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.

This however, is not a hard and fast rule.

Special considerations obtaining in any particular

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-10219-2017 Satish Verma and others Vs. State of MP and another

case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished."

17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings."

6. Thus, merely because the FIR was lodged after the divorce

petition was filed cannot be said to be a counterblast to the divorce

petition as both are to be decided independently on the basis of

evidence which would come on record. Furthermore, it is well

established principle of law that the findings recorded by the civil

Court are not binding on a criminal Court.

7. It is the case of the applicants themselves that respondent No. 2

is residing separately from the year 2015 and they have also not

denied the fact that minor daughter of the respondent No. 2 is with the

applicants.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-10219-2017 Satish Verma and others Vs. State of MP and another

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Vs. State of U.P.