Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Haneef vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 14 th OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9474 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. MOHD. HANEEF S/O ABDUL LATEEF, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
BASTI NO. 1 VANDANA NAGAR GOHALPUR,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ASHMA BEE W/O MOHD. HANEF, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O BASTI NO.
1 VANDANA NAGAR GOHALPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MOHD. ALI S/O MOHD. HANEEF, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O BASTI NO. 1
VANDANA NAGAR GOHALPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MAHMOOD ALI S/O MOHD. HANEEF, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
BASTI NO. 1 VANDANA NAGAR GOHALPUR,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY MS. sAKSHI BHARADWAJ - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
GOHALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. NEGAR ANJUM W/O MEHMOOD ALI D/O RIYAZ
KHAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
R/O ANSAR NAGAR CHOPRA GOHALPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN .....RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
Date: 2023.06.16 19:45:29 IST
NO.1/STATE)
2
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicants who
are respectively father, mother and brother of the husband of respondent No.2.
They are seeking quashing of FIR/complaint made by respondent No.2 on
02/01/2022 at Police Station Gohalpur, Distt. Jabalpur against the applicants on
the basis of which Crime No.04/2022 is registered for offences under Section
377, 498A, 34 of IPC and also Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is submitted that this case has a chequered history. Marriage of
respondent no.2 took place on 07/05/2018 with applicant No.4- Mahmood Ali.
There are allegation of demand of dowry and consequent harassment, as a
result of which respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home on 03/02/2021. It is
submitted that complaint was lodged on 02/01/2022 i.e. after eleven months of
the complainant leaving her matrimonial home.
3. Ms. Sakshi Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that
this case has peculiar facts. Applicant No.4 had filed an application before the
competent Court for restitution of conjugal rights. This application was filed
under Section 281 of Muslim Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
Notices were issued by 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur
against respondent No.2. She did not appear. Then, when final notice was
issued for her appearance, she filed a complaint so to avoid appearance before
the Family Court. It is submitted that the whole complaint is concocted
inasmuch as male child was born out of wedlock on 08/08/2019 and there were
Signature Not Verified
no complaint of any harassment and applicant No.4 was living happily with
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.06.16 19:45:29 IST
respondent No.2.
4. It is submitted that respondent No.2 was working as Aaganwadi
Karyakarta, as a result of which she was neglecting her duties towards her
husband and in-laws. She was not cooking food and used to abuse parents of
applicant No.4. Applicant No.2 is suffering from heart disease and this fact
was known to respondent No.2 yet she was continuously harassing them.
Applicants tried to reconcile with the matter with a view to maintain peace at
home but action of respondent No.2 never changed. Now she has filed a
complaint on concocted and false ground.
5. It is submitted that neither before leaving matrimonial home nor
immediately after that she lodged any complaint with any authority.
6. It is submitted that she has made false allegation against applicants
inasmuch as after 11 months of leaving of matrimonial home, her medical was
carried out in which sperms were found over the vaginal slide Ex.A, Anal Swab
Ex.B which is not possible after 11 months. It is submitted that when she is not
residing with her husband for over 11 months, then presence of sperms were
found in the FSL report dated 14/07/2022 on the Slide and Anal Swab of the
complainant.
7. Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Govt. Advocate, submits that the DNA
sample is uninterpretable, but its a matter of scientific evidence that how sperms
were found on the slide and swab obtained from the prosecutrix. This scientific
evidence cannot be scuttled at this stage. Even otherwise evidence of the
prosecutrix will be material and uninterpretable DNA will not come in the way of
proving the case.
8. Ms. Sakshi Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the applicants, places
Signature Not Verified
SAN
reliance on the judgment of Coordinate Bench passed in M.Cr.C.
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.06.16 19:45:29 IST
No.16298/2021 decided at Gwalior on 11/3/2022 and submits that on account
of delay of only four months, FIR was quashed by the Coordinate Bench.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record and especially reading statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as were
recorded by the prosectrix (respondent No.2) before the Magistrate, it is
evident that in para-1 respondent No.2 has made allegations against her husband
i.e. applicant No.4 that he was committing unnatural sex after showing her
vulgar videos. She has mentioned name of her mother-in-law, Nanad and
Jaithani to point out that she had shared her grievance with them but they used
to counsel after scolding her. In second para she has mentioned that on
2/2/2021 her husband repeated the act of unnatural sex resulting in bleeding in
private parts. She had narrated this to her mother-in-law, father-in-law and
Jaith. On 03/02/2021 allegation is that when family meet took place, then they
demanded sum of Rs.five lakh so to counsel her husband to not to perform
unnatural acts, then there is allegation of beating when she had left her
matrimonial home along with her child. Thus, it is evident that there are
omnibus and general allegations against applicants No.1, 2 and 3. Therefore,
this petition qua applicants No.1, 2 and 3 deserves to be allowed.
10. When these facts are examined in light of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal
& Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, then there are general and omnibus allegations
against applicants No.1, 2 and 3. She has not said anything about continuous
harassment for demand of dowry or in regard to demand of dowry. Allegations
of demand of Rs.five lakh so to counsel her husband appears to be unnatural
Signature Not Verified
SAN
and not a demand towards dowry, therefore, FIR registering Crime No.
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
04/2022 at Police Station Gohalpur for offences under Section 377, 498A, 34 of
Date: 2023.06.16 19:45:29 IST
IPC and also Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential
proceedings qua applicant No.1-Mohd. Haneef, applicant No.2-Ashma Bee and
applicant No.3-Mohd. Ali is hereby quashed.
11. As far as husband of respondent No.2 i.e. applicant No.4 is concerned,
there are serious allegations. They are subject-matter of evidence. Though
allegations have been made that no sperms could have been found after 11
months of separation, but, that is a matter of scientific and oral evidence.
Therefore, for the present, no indulgence can be shown in the mater of quashing
of FIR qua applicant No.4- Mahmood Ali.
12. Accordingly, this petition qua applicant No.4- Mahmood Ali is
dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2023.06.16 19:45:29 IST
