Purushottam Lal Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6376 MP

                            1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    MCRC No.20822/2022
     PURUSHOTTAM LAL SHARMA & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.


Gwalior, Dated : 28/04/2022

        Shri A.P.S.Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants.

        Shri A.K.Nirankari, learned counsel for the State.

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

quashment of FIR in Crime No.23/2022 registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A,

506 and 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.      Undisputedly, the applicant No.1 is the father-in-law and

applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law and applicant No.3 is the

husband of the respondent No.2.

3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short

are that the respondent No.3 made a complaint that she got married to

the applicant No.3 on 16/02/2021 at Jaipur in accordance with Hindu

Rites and Rituals. Cash amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, gold and silver

ornaments, house holds articles etc were given and in all

Rs.25,00,000/- were spent. After her marriage, she went to her

matrimonial house. She was kept properly in her matrimonial house

for few days and thereafter, applicants started passing taunts with

regard to less dowry. They also started alleging that parents of the

respondent No.3 has not fulfilled their demand and in case if the

applicant No.3 was married at some other place, then double amount,

i.e., Rs.50,00,000/- would have been spent in the marriage by the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.20822/2022 PURUSHOTTAM LAL SHARMA & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

bride side. Thus, they started pressurizing the respondent No.3 that

she should bring an additional amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. When

respondent No.3 refused to do so, then they started harassing her

physically and mentally. With an intention to save her married life,

she continued to bear atrocities under the hope and belief that on one

day everything would get normalized. However, there was no change

in the behavior of the applicants and after beating her by fists and

blows, she was ousted from her matrimonial house and also

specifically threatened that unless and until she brings an amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- she should not come back to her matrimonial house

otherwise she will be killed. Thereafter, she narrated the entire

incident to her brother. Her brother came to her matrimonial house

and tried to pursue the applicants but they did not agree and were

adamant with their demand. Thereafter, she came back to her parental

home alongwith her brother and narrated the entire incident to her

parents. After some time, the applicants came to her parental home at

Gwalior and also demanded an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. When the

father of the respondent No.3 replied that he cannot fulfill their

demand, then a threat was extended that unless and until an amount

of Rs.25,00,000/- is given, the respondent No.3 should not be sent to

her matrimonial house.

4. Lot of efforts were made to compromise the matter, but the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.20822/2022 PURUSHOTTAM LAL SHARMA & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

situation did not improve. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the

Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of

U.P. and Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 has held that a

preliminary enquiry should be conducted in the matrimonial houses.

Complaint was made on 25/01/2022 and FIR was also lodged on the

very same day. It is further submitted that the incidents of lodging

false report for offence under Section 498-A of IPC are increasing

day by day and the said provision is being used an instrument to

settle the personal scores against the husband as well as other in-

laws. The allegations sufferes from mala fides. They are vague and

omnibus.

6. To buttress the contention, the counsel for the applicants has

relied upon the judgment passed by Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam

& Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others decided on 08/02/2022 in

CRA No.195/2022. Geeta Mehrotra and Another Vs. State of U.P.

& another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741. Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and order

dated 07/04/2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

the case of Alok Lodhi and Other Vs. State of M.P. and Another

in MCRC No.47904/2019.

7. The counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the FIR

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.20822/2022 PURUSHOTTAM LAL SHARMA & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

lodged by the applicant No.3 against the respondent No.3 in Crime

No.65/2022 registered at Police Station Ramnagariya, Jaipur City on

the allegations that the respondent No.3 and others have cheated the

applicants and she has taken away jewelry of Rs.3,00,000/- with

herself and has also compelled the applicants to spend an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of marriage.

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

counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that the police after

completing the investigation has filed the charge-sheet and copy of

the FIR lodged by the applicant No.3 in Crime No.65/2022 registered

at Police Station Ramnagariya, Jaipur City is not a part of charge-

sheet, therefore, whether the allegations made by the applicant No.3

in his FIR are correct or not, cannot be appreciated and considered by

this Court. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations of

harassment and maltreatment against the applicants and further in the

light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of

Taramani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260,

it is clear that passing taunts for non fulfillment of demand of dowry

itself amount of cruelty.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. The allegations made in the FIR have already been reproduced

in the previous paragraph of this judgment. There are specific

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.20822/2022 PURUSHOTTAM LAL SHARMA & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

allegations against the applicant No.1 and 2 who are the father-in-law

and mother-in-law of the respondent No.3. There are specific

allegations that they are demanding Rs.25,00,000/- and because of

non fulfillment of the said demand, she has been turned out of her

matrimonial house and respondent No.3 is residing in her parental

home.

11. At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants

that since, the major part of the cruelty has been committed at Jaipur,

therefore, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior does not

have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the FIR.

12. Considered the submissions.

13. Although, it is alleged in the FIR that the applicants had also

come to her parental home and also demanded money but one thing is

clear that the respondent No.3 had clearly alleged that she was ousted

from her matrimonial house and at present, she is residing in her

parental home on account of non-fulfillment of demand of

Rs.25,00,000/-. Compelling a married women to live in her parental

home due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry is also another form

of cruelty and is continuous act of cruelty.

14. As per, Section 178 of Cr.P.C. it is clear that where part offence

has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of different

police station, then the said offence may be inquired into or tried by

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.20822/2022 PURUSHOTTAM LAL SHARMA & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

the Court having jurisdiction over any such local area. Respondent

No.3 is residing in her parental home situated at Gwalior. Since, she

has been compelled to reside in her parental home on account of non

fulfillment of demand of dowry, therefore, in the light of the

judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi

Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384, it is

clear that the mental cruelty is still continuing.

15. In the case of Rupali (supra), which has been held as under:-

"14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under Section 498-A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "the intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage (abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)". Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression "cruelty" appearing in Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatise the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress caused by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.20822/2022 PURUSHOTTAM LAL SHARMA & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place."

16. Thus, it is clear that a part of the cause of action has also arisen

within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Mahila Thana,

District Gwalior where the respondent No.3 is subjected to mental

cruelty on account of her ouster from her matrimonial home because

of non fulfillment of demand of dowry.

17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Police Station

Mahila Thana, district Gwalior had also jurisdiction to investigate

into the matter.

18. So far as the allegations are concerned, they are specific and

clear. A near and dear relative of the husband can be prosecuted if

there are clear and specific allegations against them.

19. Since, the specific allegations have been made as well as in the

light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of

Taramani Parakh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion

that no case is made out for warranting interference.

20. Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

                                                                (G.S. Ahluwalia)
Abhi                                                                  Judge
         ABHISHEK
         CHATURVEDI
         2022.05.02
         16:23:01
         +05'30'