Madhya Pradesh High Court

Durgesh Kumar Bhatnagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                            1
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020
Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and
                         another

Gwalior, Dated:22/03/2022

      Shri Madhukar Kulshrestha, Advocate for applicants.

      Shri PPS Vajeeta, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1/State.

      None for respondent no.2 though served.

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

quashing the FIR in Crime No.449/2020 registered at Police Station

Ambah, District Morena for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 34

of IPC.

2.    Undisputedly, the applicant no.1-Durgesh Kumar Bhatnagar is

the father-in-law and applicant no.4-Anil Kumar Bhatnagar is the

husband of respondent no.2, whereas applicant no.2-Sunil Kumar

Bhatnagar is the Jeth and applicant no.3-Rajni Bhatnagar is the

Jethani of respondent no.2.

3.    According to the prosecution case, respondent no.2 lodged a

report on 22/7/2020 on the allegations that she got married to

applicant no.4 on 4/2/2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and

rituals. Her father had given a cash of Rs.6,00,000/- and other

household articles in the marriage. After the marriage, for sometime

she was kept properly by applicant no.4, but thereafter applicants

started demanding a bullet motorcycle. When respondent no.2 replied

that why they are asking for a bullet motorcycle, because she does

not have any brother and the entire property of her father would be

her, then they said that at present a motorcycle may be given to them
                             2
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020
Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and
                         another

and respondent no.2 may ensure that the remaining property is given

at a later stage. When respondent no.2 replied that her father during

his lifetime cannot give his property and a motorcycle to them, then

all the four applicants got furious and started assaulting and

harassing her. The incident was informed by respondent no.2 to

her father and uncles and with the intervention of her family

members, Panchayats were convened on various occasions. For

sometime her in-laws improved their conduct, but thereafter again

they started harassing her and on 9/7/2020 they left her outside her

parental home. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and

respondent no.2, her father-Rajesh Kumar Saxena, her uncles-

Rakesh Kumar Saxena and Mahesh Kumar Saxena levelled the same

allegations.

4.    It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that during

pendency of this application, the police has filed the charge-sheet.

5.    Challenging the FIR as well as the criminal proceedings, it is

submitted by the counsel for the applicants that so far as applicants

no.2 and 3, namely, Sunil Kumar Bhatnagar and Rajni Bhatnagar are

concerned, they are Jeth and Jethani of respondent no.2. It is well

established principle of law that for prosecution of near and dear

relatives of husband of the complainant, the allegations must be

specific and on the basis of omnibus and vague allegations, they

cannot be forced to face the ordeal of criminal trial.
                             3
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020
Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and
                         another

6.    Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

applicants.

7.    The FIR has already been reproduced in toto and the

statements given by the witnesses are also identical to the allegations

made in the FIR. Thus, as per the FIR, the only allegation is that after

the marriage, respondent no.2 was kept properly for sometime, but

thereafter applicants no.2 and 3 also started demanding motorcycle

and when respondent no.2 replied that during the lifetime of her

father, he cannot give his property and a motorcycle to them, then she

was harassed and humiliated. It is again mentioned in the FIR that

with the intervention of the family members, Panchayats were

convened on various occasions and accordingly, the behaviour of her

in-laws improved for sometime, however, thereafter again they

started harassing her. Thus, it is clear that the allegations made

against applicants no.2 and 3 do not pass the test of direct and

specific allegations, but they fall within the category of vague and

omnibus allegations. 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
                             4
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020
Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and
                         another

      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:

      "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.
                             5
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020
Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and
                         another

      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
         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.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020 Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

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 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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020 Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

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.

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.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020 Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

* *

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 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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.52682/2020 Duregesh Kumar Bhatnagar and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

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 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."