Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harsh Wadhwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
MCRC No.61973/2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 17TH OF JANUARY, 2023
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.61973/2022
Between: -
Harsh Wadhwani S/o Shri Inder Wadhwani,
Aged- 29 years, Occupation- Business,
R/o- 157, Aanchal Nagar, Tilak Nagar,
Indore District Indore (MP)
.....APPLICANT
(By Shri Prateek Maheshwari, learned counsel)
AND
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Police Station Tilak Nagar,
Indore District Indore (MP)
.....RESPONDENT
(Shri Hitendra Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Advocate
General)
Laveena Wadhwani W/o Shri Harsh Wadhwani
D/o Shri Omprakash Wadhwani,
Aged: 29 years, Occupation: Nil,
R/o, G-1, Saraswati Apartment,
43, Rajmahan Colony, Manik Bagh Road,
Indore, District Indore (MP)
.....OBJECTOR
(By Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel)
...............................................................................................................................
This application coming on for orders this day, the court
passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 19-01-2023
19:07:08
MCRC No.61973/2022
2
ORDER
They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers.
This is applicant's FIRST application under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as
the applicant is apprehending his / her arrest in connection with
Crime No.332/2022 registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar,
Indore District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. (Although s.313 of IPC is not mentioned
in the bail application and the FIR, but it has been added
subsequently on the basis of the statement of the complainant
which is also mentioned in the impugned order of the district
court).
The allegation against the applicant, who happens to be the
husband of the complainant / objector, is that of harassment and
cruelty, causing miscarriage, as well as demand of dowry from
the complainant wife.
The story of the prosecution is that the marriage of the
complainant with the applicant was solemnized on 23.04.2022
and as per the complainant he was abusive from the beginning
and used to drink a lot. It is further alleged that on 25.09.2022, at
around 11.30 PM, the applicant assaulted his wife / complainant;
and thereafter, she left the house of the applicant on 26.09.2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 19-01-2023
19:07:08
MCRC No.61973/2022
and at that time, the applicant also threatened her not to inform
her parents about the incident, but after the complainant informed
her parents, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on
27.09.2022, for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 294 and 506
of IPC, and S.3 read with S.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. The complainant was also examined by a doctor and in her
MLC, it has been found that she suffered abrasions and
contusions on the left side of her face. Later it was also alleged
that the complainant has also suffered a miscarriage due to the
assault.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He belongs to a
respectable family and the allegation of abortion of the
complainant on account of assault made by the applicant is
without any substance, as even in the FIR, it is not alleged by the
complainant that she was pushed or assaulted in any such
manner, which may cause miscarriage.
Counsel has also submitted that the applicant's marriage
with the complainant was solemnized only on 23.04.2022 and he
was happy after coming to know about his wife's pregnancy;
their photographs together have also been placed on record.
Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to
various whats-app chats to substantiate his submissions that the
applicant and the complainant were regularly in touch even after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 19-01-2023
19:07:08
MCRC No.61973/2022
the incident.
Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that although
the Instagram messages have been placed on record by the
complainant in her objections, but no date is visible and they are
also not supported by the certificate under Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872 and cannot be read in evidence.
Counsel has also submitted that if the present application is
not allowed, any chance of their reconciliation would also fail. It
is also submitted that on same set of facts, the parents of the
applicant have already been granted relief by the trial Court itself.
Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the
applicant be released on anticipatory bail, as otherwise also even
if the injuries suffered by the complainant are accepted, they are
minor abrasion and at the most would fall u/s.323 of IPC.
In support of his contention, learned counsel has also
placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court
as well as other Courts: -
Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2010) 1
SCC 684;
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported as
MANU/SC/0559/2014;
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & others reported as (2014) 10 SCC
473; and
Ravinder Singh Alias Kaku v. State of Punjab reported as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 19-01-2023
19:07:08
MCRC No.61973/2022
(2022) 7 SCC 581.
On the other hand, Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel
appearing for the complainant / objector, has vehemently
opposed the prayer and it is submitted that it was only because of
applicant's assault, that the complainant fell flat on her stomach,
which has resulted in her miscarriage.
Counsel has submitted that the photographs of the
complainant clearly demonstrate that she was hit on her face,
which clearly suggests that she was subjected to cruelty and
assault. Counsel has also submitted that the complainant herself
has clearly stated in her statement that initially she did not know
that she has suffered miscarriage, however, when she was
examined by a doctor, she was informed of her miscarriage.
Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to
certain Instagram messages of the applicant and the complainant
in which, it can easily be made out that the applicant is admitting
his mistake. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to
certain colour photographs of the complainant which were
directed by this Court to be produced to see if the complainant
has really suffered any injury on her face, and the photographs
demonstrate abrasions on the left side of her fact.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
From the record, this Court finds that the FIR in the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 19-01-2023
19:07:08
MCRC No.61973/2022
case was lodged on 27.09.2022 at 22:58 Hours. In the FIR, the
complainant has also stated that soon after the marriage when
they had gone to Goa, at that time also, in Hotel Fortune, Meera
Marg also, the applicant had committed mar-pit with her; and
thereafter, when they came back to Indore, she found that he was
also habitual of drinking heavily and used to beat her every now
and then; and on 25.09.2022 also at around 11:30 PM, she was
assaulted by him and on the next day i.e. 26.09.2022, when she
left for her house, the applicant also threatened her not to inform
this incident to her parents. However, after the FIR was lodged,
her MLC was conducted on 27.09.2022 and abrasions and
contusions have been found on her left cheek and in the MLC, it
is also mentioned that the assault is by a known person around
09:30 PM on 25.09.2022, wherein she has also complained pain.
A query was also made to the doctor of the complainant Dr.
Smt. Manju Chawla inquiring about her miscarriage. It was
inquired from the said doctor that since she is her treating doctor,
during the two months pregnancy of the complainant, whether the
embryo was healthy, to which Dr. Manju Chawla has opined that
her patient Lavleena Wadhwani the complainant had reported that
she fell on her stomach, which appears to be the main cause of
miscarriage.
This doctor has also stated in her statement recorded under
Section 161 of the Code that Lavleena had informed her that she
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 19-01-2023
19:07:08
MCRC No.61973/2022
is having pain in her stomach and when she was asked about her
pain, she informed that she fell down and this doctor also noted
marks on her cheek and after inquiring, Lavleena also informed
her that her husband had slapped her. Shri Prateek Maheshwari
has challenged the statement of the Dr. Manju Chawla on the
ground that she happens to be a family friend of the complainant
hence cannot be relied upon, has no substance at this juncture.
In the supplementary statement of the complainant, she has
also stated that in the night of 25.09.2022, at around 11:30 PM,
the applicant had assaulted her and slapped her and also pushed
her, because of which, she fell down on her stomach and also
dashed her head against a wall by holding her hairs and she some
how tolerated the same in the night, and went to her parents
house the next day and she also started bleeding on 01.12.2022
and came to know that she has suffered a miscarriage. Thus, it
also appears to be a case of miscarriage.
This Court has also gone through the Instagram Messages
exchanged between the applicant and the complainant as also her
photographs clearly depicting assault on her face. So far as non-
compliance of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is concerned,
this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court is not
holding a full trial and is only weighing the documents available
on record on their face value; and at this juncture, it is not
required that all the photographs, video, documents etc. filed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 19-01-2023
19:07:08
MCRC No.61973/2022
the parties should also be accompanied by a certificate under
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
This court is also of the considered opinion that violence of
any form has no place in a marriage and even if simple injuries
are suffered by a party (more often, wife), it cannot be said to be
a case of simple injury falling u/s.323 of IPC, as an act of
domestic violence against wife is a serious offence and that is
why legislature has made it a non-bailable offence.
Thus, in such facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court does not find it to be a fit a case where anticipatory bail can
be granted to the applicant, against whom the allegations are of
assault on his wife; and this Court is of the opinion that the
custodial interrogation of the applicant would be necessary.
The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
applicant are not applicable under the facts and circumstances of
the case and are distinguishable.
Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.61973/2022
being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge
Pithawe RC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHWE
Signing time: 19-01-2023
19:07:08
