Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aaditya Godha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21239 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. AADITYA GODHA S/O DINESH GODHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVT. SERVICE R/O A-102 MEGA FLATS
NEAR PARIS NAGAR GADAURA
VADODARA (GUJARAT)
2. AABHA GODHA W/O DINESH GODHA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEHOLD 20, SILAVATO KA VAAS,
LAKKAD PITHA CHANDANI CHOWK
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DINESH CHAND S/O LATE MANAKLAL
GODHA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 20, SILAVATO KA
VAAS, LAKKAD PITHA CHANDANI CHOWK
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI AKHIL GODHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RISHIKA GODHA W/O AADITYA GODHA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE 308-A, SHIV NAGAR COLONY,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 12-04-2024
18:54:11
2
RAU ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. GEETANJALI CHAURASIA - G.A. FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE - NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
.....................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings
arising out of the Crime No.233 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021, under
Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station
- Mahila Thana, District - Indore.
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was
lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 Rishika Godha, whose
marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 on 21.05.2013.
According to the petitioners, after the marriage, the respondent
No.2 wife resided with the petitioner No.1 at Delhi till 2015, and
thereafter she went back to her parents' house at Khargone and has
been residing there only since then. A legal notice dated 29.05.2017,
was also served by the respondent no.2 on the petitioner No.1 for
restitution of conjugal rights, and its reply was also sent by the
petitioner No.1 on 03.09.2017. On 11.06.2020, the petitioner No.1
filed an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for
divorce, and subsequently, the decree of divorce has also been
passed in favour of the petitioner No.1 vide judgement and decree
dated 05.09.2023.
4] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the FIR
dated 07.12.2021, omnibus allegations have been levelled against
the petitioner No.1 and his parents, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who
are well educated as the petitioner No.1 is an Excise Officer,
whereas petitioner No.2 is his mother and petitioner No.3 is the
father, who is a businessman. Counsel for the petitioner has also
submitted that a perusal of the FIR itself would reveal that it has
been lodged on 07.12.2021, in respect of the offence which
allegedly took place between 21.05.2015 and 07.12.2021. Thus, it is
submitted that, admittedly, the FIR was hopelessly delayed and was
filed only to falsely implicate the petitioners as even in the FIR, the
complainant has mentioned that her husband has already filed a
divorce case in the Family Court. It is thus submitted by Shri Godha
that only with a view to wreck vengeance, the FIR has been lodged
after more than six years and six months, falsely accusing that the
petitioners were demanding dowry worth Rs.50 lakhs from the
complainant.
5] Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
judgement passed by the Family Court in the divorce matter
wherein, the divorce petition was filed on 11.06.2020, and after the
evidence was led by the parties, the Family Court has held that the
complainant wife has abandoned the petitioner No.1 without any
justifiable reasons since last two years. It is submitted that prior to
the aforesaid date, the respondent No.2 was already residing
separately since 2015 and the Family Court has also come to a
conclusion that the respondent No.2's behavior towards the
petitioner no.1 was one of cruelty. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR
and the consequent proceedings be quashed.
6] Counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this
Court to a matrimonial site in which the respondent
No.2/complainant has already given her profile.
7] In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioners has
also relied upon certain decisions in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as
2022 Legal Eagle (SC) 142 Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6545 of 2020), dated 08.02.2022;
Kamlesh Kalra Vs. Shilpika Kalra & Ors. reported as 2020 (4)
JKJ 176; and Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and others Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in Criminal
Revision No.521 of 2021 dated 18.08.2021.
8] Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it is
submitted that no case for interference is made out.
9] None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 despite
service of notice and there is no reply filed.
10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11] From the perusal of the record, it is found that the FIR in the
present case was lodged on 07.12.2021, whereas the period of
commission of offence is said to be 21.05.2015 to 17.12.2021, thus
if the cause of action arose to the complainant on 21.05.2015, she
has waited for six years and six months which is an inordinate delay
in lodging the FIR. It is also found that in the FIR the complainant
has also stated that she has suffered the ill treatment by the accused
persons until now, but as her husband has also filed a divorce case,
she is feeling extremely harassed. It is also found that a settlement
efforts also took place in the year 2016, but were of no avail, and
according to the complainant, her husband and in-laws still
persisted with their demand of dowry. Thus, even after 2016 she
again endured the ill treatment at the hands of the petitioners for
further four years before filing the FIR. Similar statements have
also been made by the complainant in her statement recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as also by her family members.
12] In this regard, it would also be germane to refer to the decree
of divorce, which has been passed in H.M.A. Case No.1317 of 2022
by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in favour of the
petitioner No.1 husband, and against the complainant vide
judgement and decree dated 05.09.2023 wherein the following
findings have been recorded on the issues framed:-
"उभयप के अिभवचन के आधार पर िन निल खत वाद- न क
रचना क गई, जनके िन कष उनके स मुख अं कत है :-
0 वाद न िन कष
1. या ववाह के अनु ठापन के प चात '' मा णत''
ित ाथ ने ाथ के साथ कूरता का
यवहार कया है ?
2. या ित ाथ ने ाथ का पया त कारण- '' मा णत''
के बना दो वष से अिधक समय से
अिभ यजन कया हुआ है ?
3. या ाथ , ित ाथ से ववाह व छे द क ''हां''
ड ा त करने का अिधकार है ?
4. सहायता एवं वाद यय ? '' िनणय के पैरा-
87 के अनुसार
यािचका वीकार
कर ड कया
गया ।''
13] It is apparent that the Family Court has found that it was the
complainant wife, who has treated the petitioner No.1 with cruelty
and also that she has abandoned him since last more than 2 years
and thus, the petitioner No.1 has been found to be entitled to the
decree of divorce. Whether the Family court's decision would be
binding on the criminal court is a disputed question of law,
however, reference in this regard may be had to a recent decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Raj vs. Poonamma Menon
and another reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 483. The relevant
paras of the same read as under:-
"3. The sole issue that we are required to consider is,
whether, a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the
accused therein held guilty with natural consequences
thereof to follow, in connection with a transaction, in
respect of which a decree by a competent Court of civil
jurisdiction, already stands passed.
xxx
9. In advancing his submissions, Mr. K. Parameshwar,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placed
reliance on certain authorities of this Court. In Karam
Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India, this Court
observed that:
".......It is a well-established principle of law
that the decisions of the civil courts are binding
on the criminal courts. The converse is not true."
In K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police, a Bench of
three learned Judges observed that, following the M.S.
Sheriff v. State of Madras, no straight-jacket formula
could be laid down and conflicting decisions of civil and
criminal Courts would not be a relevant consideration
except for the limited purpose of sentence or damages.
10. We notice that this Court in Vishnu Dutt
Sharma v. Daya Sapra (Smt.), had observed as under:
"26. It is, however, significant to notice a
decision of this Court in Karam Chand Ganga
Prasad v. Union of India (1970) 3 SCC 694,
wherein it was categorically held that the
decisions of the civil court will be binding on
the criminal courts but the converse is not true,
was overruled therein..."
This Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
considered a numerous precedents, including
Premshanker (supra) and Vishnu Dutt Sharma (supra),
to opine that there is no embargo for a civil court to
consider the evidence led in the criminal proceedings.
The issue has been laid to rest by a Constitution Bench of
this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah:
"32. Coming to the last contention that an effort
should be made to avoid conflict of findings
between the civil and criminal courts, it is
necessary to point out that the standard of proof
required in the two proceedings are entirely
different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of
preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal
case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution,
and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be
given. There is neither any statutory provision
nor any legal principle that the findings recorded
in one proceeding may be treated as final or
binding in the other, as both the cases have to be
decided on the basis of the evidence adduced
therein. While examining a similar contention in
an appeal against an order directing filing of a
complaint under Section 476 of the old Code,
the following observations made by a
Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff v. State of
Madras [(1954) 1 SCC 524 : 1954 SCR
1144 : AIR 1954 SC 397 : 1954 Cri LJ 1019]
give a complete answer to the problem posed :
(AIR p. 399, paras 15-16)
"15. As between the civil and the criminal
proceedings, we are of the opinion that the
criminal matters should be given precedence.
There is some difference of opinion in the High
Courts of India on this point. No hard-and-fast
rule can be laid down but we do not consider
that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the
civil and criminal courts is a relevant
consideration. The law envisages such an
eventuality when it expressly refrains from
making the decision of one court binding on the
other, or even relevant, except for certain limited
purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only
relevant consideration here is the likelihood of
embarrassment.
16. Another factor which weighs with us is that
a civil suit often drags on for years and it is
undesirable that a criminal prosecution should
wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all
about the crime. The public interests demand
that criminal justice should be swift and sure;
that the guilty should be punished while the
events are still fresh in the public mind and that
the innocent should be absolved as early as is
consistent with a fair and impartial trial.
Another reason is that it is undesirable to let
things slide till memories have grown too dim
to trust.
This, however, is not a hard-and-fast rule.
Special considerations obtaining in any
particular case might make some other course
more expedient and just. For example, the civil
case or the other criminal proceeding may be
so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay
it in order to give precedence to a prosecution
ordered under Section 476. But in this case we
are of the view that the civil suits should be
stayed till the criminal proceedings have
finished." (Emphasis Supplied)
11. The position as per Premshanker (supra) is that sentence and
damages would be excluded from the conflict of decisions in
civil and criminal jurisdictions of the Courts. Therefore, in the
present case, considering that the Court in criminal jurisdiction
has imposed both sentence and damages, the ratio of the above-
referred decision dictates that the Court in criminal jurisdiction
would be bound by the civil Court having declared the cheque,
the subject matter of dispute, to be only for the purposes of
security.
12. In that view of the matter, the criminal proceedings resulting
from the cheque being returned unrealised due to the closure of
the account would be unsustainable in law and, therefore, are to
be quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the damages as imposed
by the Courts below must be returned to the appellant herein
forthwith."
(Emphasis Supplied)
14] In view of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, the
finding recorded by the Family Court can be discarded and can be
relied upon in this proceedings also regarding the conduct of the
respondent no.2 wife in treating the petitioner no.1 husband with
cruelty an leaving him without any sufficient cause.
15] Regarding initiating the criminal proceedings against the
husband and his family members after the divorce petition is filed
by the husband, reference may also be had to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Kalra (supra), the Supreme
Court has held as under:-
"15. As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in
respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we
are of the firm opinion that the same does not call for
interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR
filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred, having been filed
much more than three years after the separation of xxxx
(husband) and xxxx (wife) and the filing of the divorce
petition by the husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case,
the reasons given by the High Court for quashing the
proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified and do not
call for interference by this Court.
xxxxxxxxxx
19. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion
that the allegations of the complainant-xxxx with regard to
non-return of the Stridhan articles and the charges under
Section 406 against the xxxx (or even against xxxx, xxxx and
xxxx) are not sustainable in law. It clearly appears that the
filing of the criminal complaint is a pressure tactic, having
been employed by the complainant-xxxx against her husband,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, which is
clearly an abuse of the process of Court, and is liable to be
quashed in toto.
20. As such, we allow the Appeal arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2908 of 2019 filed by xxxx and
quash the FIR no. 390 of 2014 under Sections 498A/406 IPC;
and dismiss the Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Crl.).....(Diary No. 9972 of 2019) filed by xxxx."
(Emphasis supplied)
16] Similarly, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam &
Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court has dealt with the growing
tendency in matrimonial disputes to lodge false FIR against the
husband and his family members u/s.498-A of IPC to settle the
personal scores against them, and it is held as under:-
"xxxxxxxxxxxxx
12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and
content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention
that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC was aimed at
preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband
and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention.
However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial
litigation in the country has also increased significantly and
there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the
institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted
in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as
Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores
against the husband and his relatives.
xxxxxxxxx
14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 it
was also observed:-
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial
disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is
greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was
introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and
his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious
place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as
weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his
relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number
of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of
the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are
arrested."
15. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
(2010) 7 SCC 667 it has also been observed:-
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of
these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the
heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper
deliberations. We come across a large number of such
complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed
with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in
the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also
a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous
social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the
social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished.
They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small
incidents should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on
their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human
problem and must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their duties to the
best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace
and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The
members of the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint
the implications and consequences are not properly
visualised by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to
the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth
and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out
the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and
all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At
times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment of husband's close relations
who had been living in different cities and never visited
or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided
would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to be
scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal
trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant
if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in
jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an
amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering
is extremely long and painful."
16. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. & Anr (2012) 10 SCC
741 it was observed:-
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an
apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V.
Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000)
3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High
Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of
a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had
been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was
quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that :
"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute
in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the
main purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But
little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which
often assume serious proportions resulting in
commission of heinous crimes in which elders of
the family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the criminal
case. There are many other reasons which need not
be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may
ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years
and years to conclude and in that process the
parties lose their "young" days in chasing their
cases in different courts."
The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
18. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that
this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over
the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency
of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a
trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further
manifest from the said judgments that false implication by
way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse
of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the
relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie
case is made out against them."
(Emphasis Supplied)
17] Thus, when the facts of the case in hand are tested on the
anvil of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it is apparent
that the trigger point for the complainant to lodge the FIR was only
when she was served with the notice of divorce case by her
husband, the petitioner no.1, whereas in her complaint, as also the
statements of her family members, it appears that omnibus
allegations have been levelled against them and there is no specific
instance which can be corroborated by any tangible evidence which
may suggest that the complainant wife was subjected to ill
treatment by the petitioners.
18] It may also not be out of place to mention here that the
complainant has also refrained from appearing before this Court and
to reply to petition, which also shows her unwillingness to contest
the matter. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served to drag
this matter in the trial Court. .
19] Resultantly, the petition stands allowed and the FIR, charge-
sheet and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the Crime
No.233 of 2021 dated 07.12.2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506
and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station - Mahila Thana, District
- Indore are hereby quashed.
20] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed
of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
