Smt. Somwati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6014 MP

                                                      1
                 IN         THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                            AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                          ON THE 13 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                     CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2704 of 2021

               BETWEEN:-
               1.          SMT. SOMWATI W/O SHRI UTTAM KUSWAH,
                           AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DINARA PS
                           DINARA DISTT. SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

               2.          UTTAM    KUSHWAH   S/O   SHRI    KALURAM
                           KUSHWAH,    AGED    ABOUT     42   YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION:   AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE
                           DINARA PS DINARA DISTT. SHIVPURI (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....PETITIONERS
               (BY SHRI D.P.SINGH- ADVOCATE )

               AND
               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
               STATION    KARERA DISTT. SHIVPURI (MADHYA
               PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....RESPONDENT
               (BY SHRI A.P.S.TOMAR - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE )

                           Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
               following:
                                                       ORDER

Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.7.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, Distt. Shivpuri, in Sessions Trial No.22/2021 by which charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the petitioners, petitioners have Signature Not Verified

preferred this revision.

Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 18-04-2023 06:15:41 PM In brief facts of the case are that on 24.3.2020 at 10 am Mukesh

Kushwah gave an information at police Station, Karera, Distt. Shivpuri that in the morning at 7 am he went to Well leaving his wife Laxmi at the house. When he returned at about 8.30 am he found that his wife was hanging from the ceiling. He along with Bhagwat Singh, Sunil Kushwah, Bhag Singh Kushwah got down her and found that she has died. On his information, Merg No.21/2020 was recorded. Dead-body Panchnama was prepared in presence of brother of deceased Kallu and Premsingh, Manmohan and Arti. Postmortem was conducted. As per postmortem report, she died due to hanging. During Merg enquiry statements of mother, brother and sister-in-law of the deceased were recorded. They alleged that marriage of deceased Laxmi was solemnized with

Mukesh three years back in Samuhik Vivah Sammelan. Husband Mukesh, Jeth Sunil, Jeth Bhan Singh, Nanad Somwati and Nandoi Uttam Kushwah used to harass her in connection with demand of Rs. two lacs in dowry. Thereafter crime No.174/2020 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners and other co-accused. After investigation, charge- sheet has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are distant relatives of the husband of the deceased. Petitioners are living separately. They reside at Dinara and deceased was residing at Karera and distance between both the places is 27 kms. Just to implicate all the family members of the husband of the deceased, petitioners have been implicated in the case. There is no evidence that soon before the death, deceased was subjected to cruelty by the petitioners

Signature NotinVerified connection with demand of dowry. Despite this, trial Court has framed the Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD aforesaid charges against them.

Signing time: 18-04-2023 06:15:41 PM

It is further contended by learned counsel that prosecution proceedings against the petitioners are if allowed to continue in the Court, then it would be a sheer abuse of process of law and it would cause harassment and torture to the petitioners without any fault on their parts. It is further contended that now-a- days, a tendency is increasing day-by-day of falsely implicating near and dear relatives of husband so as to pressurize them. So far as offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Sharma and others vs. State of UP and Another decided on 27-07-2017 (CRA No. 1265 of 2017) has judicially acknowledged the misuse of provisions of aforesaid Section 498-A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. By relying on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kans Ra vs. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207, Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, it is contended that allegations made against petitioners are wholly omnibus and have apparently been made to falsely implicate them. Unless and until there are specific allegations against them, they should not be compelled to face the trial. A tendency is increasing in the society to falsely and over-implicate the relatives of husband so as to pressurize. Therefore, impugned order of framing of charge against the petitioners be quashed.

Learned counsel for the State has supported the order of framing of charge.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kans Raj (supra) has observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all relations of the husband on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD part of the wife. Mere naming them in the FIR is not enough to summon them in Signing time: 18-04-2023 06:15:41 PM the absence of any specific role and material to support such role. Similarly, in

the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if in a case of dowry related offences, the names of husband's relatives are casually mentioned in the FIR and the contents of it, do not disclose their active involvement, cognizance of matter against them would not be justified. Further, in the matter of Preeti Gupta (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is a matter of common experience that most of complaints under Section 498-A of IPC are filed in the heat of moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and therefore, such complaints are not even bone fide and are filed with oblique motive.

If the entire facts and circumstances of the case along with allegations made against the petitioners are considered in the light of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then it is clear that only vague and omnibus allegations have been made against them. Since the petitioners are living separately, therefore, their case stand on a different footing than that of the husband and other co-accused. There is no specific allegation against them. Only vague and omnibus allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to prosecute them who otherwise do not have anything to do with family affairs of the husband of the deceased.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Court erred in framing charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. Accordingly, impugned order of framing of charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is quashed against the petitioners. They

Signature Notare discharged.

Verified Signed by: MADHU With the aforesaid, this revision stands allowed and disposed of. SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 18-04-2023 06:15:41 PM

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 18-04-2023 06:15:41 PM