Smt. Asha @ Uma Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13651 MP

                             1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                  ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
              CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3582 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
1.    SMT. ASHA @ UMA SHARMA W/O SHRI
      DAYAKISHAN SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
      AROUND, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE

2.    DAYAKISHAN SHARMA S/O LATE VANSHGOPAL
      SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      RETIRED

3.    KAMALKANT      SHARMA  S/O   DAYAKISHAN
      SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      NIL AT PRESENT

4.    KU. CHANDRAKANTA SHARMA D/O DAYAKISHAN
      SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      NIL AT PRESENT

      ALL R/O SHABD PRATAP ASHRAM, RAMPURI
      COLONY, BAHODAPUR, LASHKAR, DISTRICT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    SMT. NEETU SHARMA D/O SHRI DAYAKISHAN
      SHARMA W/O SHRI VIVEK SHARMA, AGED
      ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL AT PRESENT,
      R/O SIHONIA DISTRICT MORENA AT PRESENT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI YASH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION,
      GOHAD DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
      STATION WOMEN CELL, DISTRICT GWALIOR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                     2
3.    SMT. MONIKA @ KHUSHI SHARMA W/O
      KAMALKANT SHARMA D/O KAMAL KISHOR
      SHARMA, AGE 24 YEARS AROUND, OCCUPATION:
      NOT KNOWN, R/O NAVEEN COLONY, WARD NO. 2,
      GOHAD DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ROHIT SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)

      This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 25.8.2022 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Gohad, District Bhind whereby the

charges for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 Part-II of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the applicants.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the applicants are mother- in-law, father-in-law, husband and sister-in-laws respectively of respondent No.3/complainant whose marriage was solemnized with applicant No.3 on 18.4.2018. After marriage, applicants started harassing the respondent No.3 on account of non-fulfillment of their dowry demand and ousted her from her matrimonial house on 20.12.2018. Parents of respondent No.3 tried to get settle the loggerheads amicably but applicants were adamant due to which counselling took place between them failed on 28.7.2019. Thereafter, respondent No.3 made a written complaint dated 19.1.2020 to the Police Station Mahila Thana, Gwalior which was transferred to Police Station Gohad, District Bhind. On the basis of said written complaint, an FIR bearing Crime No.42/2020 was lodged against the applicants wherein after completion of investigation, charge sheet

was filed against them before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Gohad, District Bhind which is pending as Criminal Case No.361/2020 (RCT).

3. Learned Trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicants, vide order dated 25.8.2022 framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 Part-II of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicants have filed the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants referring the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2020 passed by the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Gwalior in Matrimonial Case No.663A/2019 submits that respondent No.3 filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent No.3 before the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Gwalior wherein vide aforesaid order marriage of applicant No.3 and respondent No.3 was dissolved. Being annoyed of the aforesaid judgment and decree, respondent No.3 lodged false and fabricated FIR against the applicants. The whole prosecution story is doubtful. Respondent No.3 is residing at her paternal house since 2018, therefore, allegations with regard to dowry demand cruelty against the applicants are unsustainable. Learned Trial Court has committed error in framing charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 506 Part-II of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore, the same may be quashed and the applicants may be discharged from all the charges framed against them. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Miyan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 13 SCC 398.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that it is apparent from the FIR itself that respondent No.3 was ousted from her matrimonial house in the year 2018 and since then respondent No.3 was making complaint against the applicants whereupon conciliation proceedings were going on at Mahila Thana, Gwalior and when conciliation proceeding failed, FIR was lodged against the applicants, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.3 lodged the FIR as a counter-blast of the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2020. Respondent No.3 as well as other prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have specifically stated about the allegations alleged against the applicants. Learned Trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charges against the applicants. Revision appears to be devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

8. Upon perusal of copy of the charge sheet submitted by the applicants it is apparent that before lodging of the FIR dated 19.1.2020, respondent No.3 approached the Police Station Mahila Thana, Gwalior with regard to her grievances against the applicants whereupon conciliation proceedings had taken place in the year 2019 i.e. prior to the passing of divorce decree dated 27.1.2020. Hence facts of this case are entirely different from the case of Mohammad Miyan (supra) cited by the applicants wherein FIR was lodged after about four years of passing of the order on divorce petition. Specific allegations with regard to dowry demand cruelty have been made in the FIR as well as in the statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation, therefore, at this stage it cannot be held that there is no evidence against the applicants.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 Part-II of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants.

10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed, hence it is dismissed.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2023.08.22 18:18:31 +05'30'