Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Nirmala Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 February, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Bench Gwalior
*****************
SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
MCRC 61607 of 2021
Smt. Nirmala Raghuvanshi Vs. State of MP and Anr.
==================================
Ms. Divyanshi Goyal, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Dheeraj Budholiya, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/ State.
Shri RK Sharma, learned Senior Counsel with Shri VK Agrawal, counsel for
respondent No.2/ complainant.
==================================
Reserved on 11/02/2022
Whether approved for reporting ..../.......
==================================
ORDER
(Passed on ...28/02/2022)
Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-
Petitioner has come up with the present petition u/S. 482 of CrPC for
quashing of FIR vide Crime No.49 of 2011, registered at Mahila Police Station
Padav, District Gwalior for commission of offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act as well as quashment of other consequential criminal proceedings pending
before the Court of JMFC, Gwalior in connection with Criminal Case No.8484
of 2011.
(2) It is not in dispute that complainant/respondent No.2 was married to the
son of petitioner, namely, Abhishek Raghuvanshi and petitioner is the mother-
in-law of the complainant. As per the prosecution case, the respondent No.2
lodged a complaint against the petitioner including her in-laws at Mahila
Police Station Padav for commission of cruelty as well as criminal
intimidation in regard to demand of dowry. Matter was investigated and after
completion of investigation and other formalities, the police filed charge sheet
before the Magistrate against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.
Hence, this petition.
(3) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially, FIR
was lodged at Mahila Police Station Padav regarding harassment for demand
of dowry on 02/07/2011 and soon after the marriage, the respondent No.2 was
living with her husband at Bangalore and Chennai and thereafter, w.e.f
24/01/2011, she was living in her parental home and the alleged offence was
either happened at Guna or Bangalore or Chennai and on 30 th March, 2008, the
husband of the complainant left India for America and gave assurance that he
will return back within two months. Hence, police authorities at Gwalior have
no jurisdiction to register the impugned FIR. It is further submitted the
complainant has neither alleged any demand of dowry at Gwalior nor she was
ill-treated for fulfillment of demand of dowry, therefore, no offence at Gwalior
according to the impugned FIR is made out against petitioner. It is further
submitted that earlier, a petition under Section 482 of CrPC i.e. MCRC
No.7751/2011 filed by other in-laws including husband of the complainant
before this Court was allowed vide order dated 09/10/2012. Being dissatisfied,
thereafter, the respondent No.2- complainant filed an SLP before the Supreme
Court i.e. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.10095 of 2012 and the same was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14/01/2013. Thereafter, the State
filed Criminal Appeal No.1577 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6676 of
2013) before the Supreme Court and the same was allowed vide order dated
03rd December, 2021 in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of
Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC
384 with observation that it will be open to the respondents therein to take all
available grounds before the appropriate Courts. It is further submitted that the
complainant can file a criminal case at the place where she was residing at the
time of her marriage. Since there is no specific allegation against petitioner,
therefore, the impugned FIR and other consequential criminal proceedings
initiated pursuant thereto pending before Court of JMC deserve to be quashed,
by allowing this petition.
(4) On the other hand, the Counsel for the State as well as learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2- complainant opposed the petition
and submitted that in the impugned FIR, there is specific allegation that on
11/06/2011 a threat was given to the complainant and her family members at
Gwalior and there is allegation of abusing her on telephone at Gwalior,
therefore, offence being continuous offence, can be tried at Gwalior. No
ground is made out for quashing the impugned FIR and further criminal
proceedings. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
(5) In reply, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since no cause
of action has been arisen at Gwalior and simply by saying that the complainant
was threatened at Gwalior, it cannot be said that offence under Section 498-A
of IPC is made out in continuation of harassment of demand of dowry and
threat, as alleged in the impugned FIR does not fall within the ambit of offence
under Section 506 of IPC. In the statements of the complainant recorded under
Section 161 of CrPC and statements of the father of the complainant, there is
no allegation against the petitioner. The FIR lodged by the complainant is a
handwritten complaint after giving full afterthought. Therefore, on the basis of
bald allegation, the petitioner can not be prosecuted. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in
(2000)5 SCC 207, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in-laws of
complainant cannot be roped in only on the ground of being close relations of
husband of the complainant. Similarly, the counsel for the petitioner has relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subharao vs.
State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that the Court should be careful in proceedings
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes. 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. It is further submitted that regarding misusing the provisions of Section
498-A of IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in details in the matter of
Rajesh Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472.
It is further submitted that petitioner is a retired teacher and widow and her
husband committed suicide on 08/01/2013 due to ill-treatment by respondent
No.2/complainant and petitioner is now undergoing her treatment at TATA
Memorial Hospital, Mumbai as she is suffering malignancy.
(6) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused documents
available on record.
(7) It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is the mother-in-law of the
complainant. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner, who is now aged
around 66 years, suffering advanced stage of malignancy (cancer). Looking to
the allegations levelled against the petitioner, no case is made out for
quashment of impugned FIR as well as other subsequent criminal proceedings.
However, considering the advanced stage of malignancy (cancer) of the
petitioner, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the learned trial
Court is hereby directed that if any application is filed on behalf of the
petitioner to dispense with her presence during the trial, be considered keeping
in view the health condition of petitioner and the trial be completed in the
presence of her counsel, unless an alternative remedy be given to the petitioner
in that regard. It is made clear that petitioner shall not challenge the aforesaid
liberty in Appeal. It is also made clear that whenever the presence of petitioner
becomes essential, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass a detailed and
specific detailed order for the same, in accordance with law.
(8) With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge
MKB
Digitally signed by MAHENDRA
BARIK
Date: 2022.03.02 18:21:37 +05'30'
