Satish Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3683 MP

                                                       1
                          IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT GWALIOR
                                                  BEFORE
                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                            ON THE 2 nd OF MARCH, 2023
                                      MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38892 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    SATISH JAIN S/O LATE SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR
                               JAIN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
                               SHRAWANKUNJ P-33 A PATEL NAGAR, GWALIOR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    MUKESH JAIN S/O LATE SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR
                               JAIN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
                               GANESH COLONY NAYA BAZAR LASHKAR
                               GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    MEENA JAIN W/O SHRI SATISH JAIN, AGED
                               ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHRAWANKUNJ
                               P-33 A PATEL NAGAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONERS
                         (SHRI SOHIT MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
                               POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION
                               MAHILA THANA DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    SUPERINTEDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT GWALIOR
                               OFFICE MADHAV RAO SCINDIA MARG CITY
                               CENTER PATEL NAGAR, GWALIOR DISTRICT
                               GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE DEPARTMENT
                               POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA DISTRICT
                               GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    PRAGATI JAIN W/O VIPIN JAIN D/O BHARAT JAIN,
                               AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, B2 SHANTI NAGAR NAI
                               SADAK GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 3/4/2023
4:06:04 PM
                                                              2
                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI PRAMOD PACHAURI- LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE
                         STATE- RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,
                         LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.4)

                               This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                         following:
                                                              ORDER

Instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioners for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 321 of 2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 377, 506, 323 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as other subsequent criminal proceedings arising

with said crime.

Facts giving rise to present petition in short are that petitioner no.1 is father-in-law, petitioner no.2 is uncle-in-law and petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law of complainant (herein respondent No.3). Complainant lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.321 of 2021 at police station Mahila Thana, Gwalior on 22-11-2021 at around 08:10 in the evening,stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with Bipin Jain on 03-12-2011 as per rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry including Rs.10 lac in cash, gold ornaments, electronic items and other household articles. Soon after her marriage, when she started living in her in-laws house at City Centre, Gwalior, her husband and other in-laws started harassing her and told that her parents have not performed the marriage as per capacity. Her husband used to commit unnatural sex with her and after eight days of marriage, her husband went to Hyderabad for a job. Thereafter, her in-laws used to harass her on demand of dowry. After calling by her husband, in the month of January, 2012, she went to Hyderabad where her husband was staying in a flat on rent. At there, her Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/4/2023 4:06:04 PM

husband used to commit marpeet and unnatural sex with her. Due to shame, she could not complain regarding this fact to anybody. In the year 2012, her husband opened a Plastic Company and demanded Rs.20 lac from her father and when she objected to this, he used to commit marpeet with her and thereafter, left her in Patel Nagar, Gwalior. Afterwards, she went to her parental house at Shanti Nagar and after taking Rs.20 lac from her father, she gave the same to her husband and thereafter, her husband went with the said money to Hyderabad where her husband had opened the said plastic Company. From their wedlock, a female child was born. In the month of July, 2014, her husband, father-in-law and uncle-in-law used to demand Rs. 10 lac and subjected her with cruelty because of non-fulfillment of sufficient demand. Thereafter, she narrated whole incident to her father, mother and brother by which her mother and brother had given Rs.10 lac at Hyderabad to her husband by which her husband had purchased a flat at there. In April, 2021 grand-father of her husband died and her husband thereafter brought her to her in-laws house at Patel Nagar Gwalior and against her will, he used to commit unnatural sex with her many times and when she objected to it, her husband gave a threat to oust her, commited marpeet with her and gave a threat to kill her. Due to fear, she became silent. Her husband Bipin Jain, father-in-law Satish Jain and uncle- in-law Mukesh Jain used to give threat in regard to demand of Rs.10 lac. After

six days, in 2021 her husband took her with him to Hyderabad and in the month of September, 2021, he ousted her from the house due to non-fulfillment of demand. In the month of September, 2021, she returned from Hyderabad with her mother and stayed at Atapur in a room on rent. On 18-11-2021, she came along with her mother to Gwalior and narrated the incident in detail to her

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/4/2023 4:06:04 PM

parents. Despite settling the issue with her in-laws by her parents, no result came out. Therefore, she lodged impugned FIR against the present petitioners/in-laws.

Challenging the impugned FIR and other consequential criminal proceedings arising out of said crime, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with Bipin Jain on 03-12-2011 and in the month of January, 2012, she had gone with her husband to Hyderabad and in month of September, 2021, she returned from Hyderabad with her mother. During that period she was living with her husband. The impugned FIR has been lodged by complainant afterthoughts as well as with mala fide intention to stigmatize the reputation of family of her husband and she had not made any complaint since 2011 to anybody for a period of more than eight years. Due to dispute between the complainant and her husband, she has implicated the whole family in regard to demand of dowry. The petitioner no.2 who is the uncle-in-law is living separately and he has no role with the family affairs of complainant. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in-laws of the complainant cannot be roped in only on the ground of being close relatives of the husband of the complainant. The Court should be careful in proceedings against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. Specific and clear allegations are necessary against the relatives of the husband. Now-a-days, there is an increasing tendency in the society to over-implicate the near and dear relatives of husband so as to pressurize the husband. The parents of the complainant have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations. Now-a-days, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/4/2023 4:06:04 PM

tendency of implication of husband and all his relatives is also not uncommon and even after conclusion of trial, it is very difficult to ascertain real truth. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners and complainant has not even specified the date on which the petitioners had committed cruelty with her. The complainant has filed the impugned FIR with an ulterior motive only on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. 1990 SCR Supl(3) 259, Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of UP (2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, K. Subharao vs. State of Telangana AIR 2018 SC 4009, Kansraj vs. State of Punjab and Others (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Another vs. State of UP and Others (2014) 16 SCC 551. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioners that regarding misusing the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in details in the matter of Rajesh Sharma vs. State of UP (208) 10 SCC 472. It is further contended that there is a delay of seven months in lodging impugned FIR and the complainant has utterly failed to explain the delay. Therefore, on the basis of bald allegations, petitioners cannot be prosecuted and the impugned FIR has been lodged against petitioner without conducting a preliminary enquiry by police authorities. Hence, prayed for quashment of impugned FIR as well as consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime no.321/2021.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as complainant supported the contents of impugned FIR and submitted that as per allegation of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/4/2023 4:06:04 PM

the FIR matter has to be investigated by police authorities and at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. There are specific allegations against the husband of the complainant who usually commit unnatural sex with the complainant against her will and used to commit marpeet with her and so also used to make cruelty and harassment in regard to non- fulfilment of sufficient dowry. Therefore, the complaint/ FIR should not be thrown merely on the basis of mala fide or plea of afterthought. No good ground is made out for quashment of impugned FIR. Hence, prayed for dismissal of present petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is gathered that right from her marriage complainant was residing with her husband and petitioners were not residing with them, and therefore, the allegations against the petitioners appear to be an afterthought with a view to implicate whole family of her husband which cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court cited by the petitioners.

Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 321 of 2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 377, 506, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as other subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the said crime is hereby quashed so far as it relates to present petitioners.

Petition stands allowed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to Police Station concerned for information and compliance.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/4/2023 4:06:04 PM

MKB

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 3/4/2023 4:06:04 PM