Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandraveer Singh vs Smt. Anita Kunwar on 22 February, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51750 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. CHANDRAVEER SINGH S/O RAM SINGH
SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PVT. JOB R/O VILLAGE GARDOUDI, POST
KALYANPURA, DIST. PRATAPGARH (RAJ.)
(RAJASTHAN)
2. RAMSINGH S/O SAJJAN SINGH SISODIYA, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O VILLAGE GARDOUDI, POST KALYANPURA,
DIST. PRATAPGARH (RAJ.) (RAJASTHAN)
3. SMT. DHANKUNWARBAI W/O RAM SINGH
SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE GARDOUDI, POST
KALYANPURA, DIST. PRATAPGARH (RAJ.)
(RAJASTHAN)
4. PUSHPENDRA SINGH S/O RAM SINGH SISODIYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE GARDOUDI, POST
KALYANPURA, DIST. PRATAPGARH (RAJ.)
(RAJASTHAN)
5. SMT. RAJU KUNWAR W/O PUSHPENDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE GARDOUDI, POST
KALYANPURA, DIST. PRATAPGARH (RAJ.)
(RAJASTHAN)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI AMAR SINGH RATHORE WITH SHRI ARPIT SINGH - ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPLICANTS)
AND
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SMT. ANITA KUNWAR W/O CHANDRAVEER SINGH
SAN PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Date: 2023.02.23
18:09:13 IST
SISODIYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O 133,
DEVARADEV NARAYAN NAGAR, P.S. AUDHYOGIK
KSHETRA, RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RISHI AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashment of RCT No.151/2018, in which the cognizance has
been taken under Section 406 of the IPC by JMFC, Ratlam.
Facts of the case are that the respondent filed a private complaint before
the Magistrate on 5/9/2017 for the offences under Section 406, 420 of the IPC
stating that she got married to the petitioner no.1 on 27/4/2003 and, thereafter,
she was subjected to cruelty and besides that the petitioners took her valuables
which were given to her in her marriage and did not return them. She further
alleged that a list of household articles as well as jewellery were given to her as
stree dhan which have been misappropriated by the petitioners. She was given
assurance that a locker will be opened in her name and the aforesaid valuables
will be kept in the said locker but no locker was opened. The learned Trial
Court after recording the statements of the complainant under Section 200 of
the Cr.P.C and of her witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C passed the
impugned order directing registration of a criminal case against the petitioners
under Section 406 of the IPC.
Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order of taking
cognizance of offence under Section 406 IPC mainly on the ground that the
present complaint is nothing but abuse of the process of law. The said
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
complaint was filed suppressing the fact that the respondent has already filed a
SAN PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Date: 2023.02.23
18:09:13 IST
criminal case at Police Station - Audhyogik Kshetra, Ratlam on the same
allegations. Thus, the second complaint in respect of the same
incident/transaction is impermissible and is liable to be quashed. In support of
his contention he has relied on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case
Krishna lal Chawla and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order
impugned and submitted that there is no abuse of the process of law. The
respondent lodged an F.I.R against the petitioners on 18/7/2017 at Police
Station - Audhyogik kshetra, Ratlam for commission of offences under Section
498-A/34 of IPC which was trasferred to P.S - Rathanjana, District -
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan for further action and Police Station - Rathanjana,
registered an F.I.R No.67/2017 on 29/7/2017 for commission of offences under
Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against
the petitioners. It is further submitted that the respondent has not made any
allegation for commission of breach of trust in the said complaint and the said
complaint was only in respect of cruelty on the part of the petitioners to her.
The allegation in the said complaint was different from the complaint made by
the respondent in the present case. It is further submitted that Police Station -
Rathanjana carried out investigation and after completion of the investigation the
Police filed the charge-sheet only against the petitioner No.1- Chandraveer
Singh, husband and, thereafter, the Magistrate, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan has
framed the charges under Section 498-A, 406 of IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act only against the petitioner No.1 who is the husband of
the respondent. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the framing of the charges
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Date: 2023.02.23
18:09:13 IST under Section 406 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the
concerned Court, Pratapgarh at Rajasthan, they should take resort to the legal
remedy against the same. In the said complaint the respondent has not made
allegation to any breach of trust. The said report was only in respect of cruelty
under Section 498(A). The petitioners raised an objection before the learned
Magistrate, Ratlam in criminal case no. 151/2018 that the complaint is not
maintainable because for the same incident a case has already been filed at
Police Station - Rathanjan, District - Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. The said application
was rejected vide order dated 4/2/2019. The said order was challenged in
Criminal Revision before the Ist ASJ, Ratlam and the said Revision was
dismissed. Hence, petition for quashment of the impunged order is filed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the sole question arises for
consideration is that whether the complaint filed by the respondent on 5/9/2017
before JMFC, Ratlam for commission of offences under Section 406 and 420
of the IPC is liable to be dismissed on the ground that another criminal case is
pending before Police Station - Rathanjana, District - Pratapgarh, Rajasthan and
the present complaint is result of abuse of process of law. Upon perusal of the
private complaint filed by the respondent on 5/9/2017 for offences under
Section 406, 420 of the IPC, it is alleged that the respondent got married to the
petitioner no.1 on 27/4/2003 and her parents had given her valuables, jewellery
etc. the same was taken by the petitioners assuring her that a locker will be
opened in the Bank and the same shall be kept in the safe custody but later the
locker was not opened and the said jewellery was said to be given to the sister-
in-law, thus, the allegation is regarding misappropriation of stree dhan. On the
said complaint the Magistrate has taken cognizance only for offence under
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN PRAMOD
Section 406 IPC against the petitioners and not for offence under Section 420.
KUSHWAHA
Date: 2023.02.23
18:09:13 IST
Upon perusal of the other complaint which was lodged on 18/7/2017 at
P.S - Audhyogik Kshetra, Ratlam for commission of offence under Section
498-A/34, it was alleged that the respondent was being subjected to cruelty by
the husband and the family members(in-laws). The said FIR was transferred to
P.S - Rathanjana, District - Pratapgarh and the said Police Station has registered
an FIR no.67/2017 for commission of offences under Sections 498(A) and 406
of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Though there is no
allegation of misappropriation of stree dhan. The Police Station - Rathanjana,
District - Pratapgarh, Rajasthan has filed charge-sheet for offences under
Section 498(A) and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
for the said offences the charges have been framed against the petitioner no.1
only.
Upon perusal of both the complaints it is clear that the allegations in both
complaints are not the same. In one complaint the only allegation has been made
of cruelty by the husband and family members of the husband and in the other
complaint she has alleged misappropriation of stree dhan. Thus, the allegations
in both the complaints are on different set of allegations and offences. The
framing of the charge under Sections 498(A), 406 of IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner No.1 by Judicial Magistrate,
Pratapgarh, State of Rajasthan cannot be examined by this Court for want of
territorial jurisdiction.
In view of the aforesaid, the judgment relied on by the counsel for the
applicant in the case of Krishna lal Chawla (supra) would not apply to the facts
of the present case as in the present case both the complaints are not on the
same set of allegations or in respect of same incident/transaction. In the
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Date: 2023.02.23
18:09:13 IST impugned order taking cognizance for offence under Section 406 of IPC, I do
not find any illegality. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Pramod
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Date: 2023.02.23
18:09:13 IST
