Raghunandan Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2979 MP

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                1                Cr.R.No.1799/2021

           Raghunandan Dhakad Vs. The State of M.P.

Gwalior Bench: Dated; 03-03-2022

      Shri R.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri V.K.

Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Rohit Shrivastava, learned PL for the respondent/State.

With consent heard finally.

1. Present petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by

the petitioner/revisionist for quashment of order dated 16-07-

2021 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,

Sabalgarh District Morena in S.T.No.201/2021 whereby the

charge under Section 304-B read with Section 109 of IPC has

been framed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 29-04-2017

marriage of deceased -Priyanka and Santosh was solemnized

according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. After marriage, in-laws

of the deceased Priyanka started harassing her for fulfillment

of their dowry demand of Rs.50,000/- or motorcycle.

Thereafter family mediation took place and Priyanka went to

her in-laws house but on 17/18-12-2020 she committed

suicide by hanging within seven months of her marriage.

Marg was registered and on the basis of marg investigation,

FIR was registered against mother-in-law, husband and

paramour of mother-in-law of the deceased (present HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

petitioner). Charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution for the

offence under Sections 304-B, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Sections

3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was filed. Thereafter, vide

impugned order, trial Court framed the charge against the

petitioner as referred above.

3. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioner, trial

Court erred in framing the charge under Section 304-B read

with Section 109 of IPC against the petitioner because

petitioner does not fall within the category of blood relation

and family members of the husband of deceased Priyanka. It is

further submitted that since petitioner is neither relative nor in

blood relation of husband of deceased, therefore, charge of

Section 304-B of IPC cannot be framed against him. Petitioner

had never abetted or instigated the deceased or relative of

husband of the deceased for making dowry demand. Merely

on the basis of allegation of paramour of mother-in-law of the

deceased, petitioner cannot be grilled. To bolster his

submission, reliance has been placed over the decision of

Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit

Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 632. Thus, prayed for setting aside of

impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner

and submitted that charges have been framed against the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

petitioner and now petitioner has to prove his innocence

before the trial Court by leading evidence. Thus, prayed for

dismissal of petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended with petition.

6. This is a case where as per allegation itself as contained in

FIR, petitioner appears to be paramour of mother-in-law of the

deceased because his relationship is referred in FIR and in

statements of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, as per ambit

of Section 304-B of IPC and judgment rendered by the Apex

Court in the matter of Gurmit Singh (supra) since he is not

in blood relation and family member of the deceased,

therefore, he cannot be termed as family member of the

husband of the deceased for the purpose of Section 304-B and

498-A of IPC. Moreso, he can be accused of any other

offences of IPC.

7. In the matter of Gurmit Singh (supra), the Apex Court has

given guidance in following words:

"It is well known rule of construction that when the Legislature uses same words in different part of the statute, the presumption is that those words have been used in the same sense, unless displaced by the context. We do not find anything in context to deviate from the general rule of interpretation. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that the word "relative of the husband" in HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Section 304 B of the IPC would mean such persons, who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. When we apply this principle the respondent herein is not related to the husband of the deceased either by blood or marriage or adoption. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court did not err in passing the impugned order. We hasten to add that a person, not a relative of the husband, may not be prosecuted for offence under Section 304B IPC but this does not mean that such a person cannot be prosecuted for any other offence viz. Section 306 IPC, in case the allegations constitute offence other than Section 304B IPC."

8. However, this is the case in which deceased was daughter-in-

law of other co-accused and she committed suicide because of

pressure of demand of dowry and alleged harassment meted

out to her on such pretext. Here, in the present case, as per

allegations of prosecution itself, petitioner is paramour of

mother-in-law of the deceased. Therefore, although, petitioner

may not be tried for offence under Section 304-B read with

Section 109 of IPC but trial Court is given liberty to reframe

the charge as per law and explore whether any incriminating

material is existing for offence under Section 306 read with

Section 109 of IPC or other related offence or not and

thereafter ensure appropriate framing of charges accordingly

against the petitioner.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

9. Revision petition preferred by the petitioner stands disposed

of in above terms.

Anil*                                              (Anand Pathak)
                                                       Judge
        ANIL KUMAR
        CHAURASIYA
        2022.03.07
        05:50:18
        -08'00'