Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Renu Sood vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35565 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. RENU SOOD W/O SHRI DEVENDRA SOOD,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE SOOD NIWAS 98 TILAK NAGAR KOTRI
DISTT. KOTA RAJASTHAN (RAJASTHAN)
2. DEVENDRA SOOD S/O SHRI SURENDRA SOOD,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET.
GOVT. SERVANT H.NO. 98 TILAK NAGAR
GUMANPURA (RAJASTHAN)
3. PAWAN SOOD S/O SHRI DEVENDRA SOOD, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB
H.NO. 98 TILAK NAGAR GUMANPURA PRESENLTY
444 GAS LIGHT DRIVE APARTMENT 9 SOUTH
WEYMOUTH MASACHUSEDS (OTHER COUNTRY)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI DR. ANUVAD SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. S.H.O.
P.S. GORAKHPUR JABALPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRACHI RELAN D/O RAKESH RELAN, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, B-19 RAJUL RESIDNCY
NARMADA ROAD P.S GORAKHPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35604 of 2021
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/19/2024
6:18:44 PM
2
BETWEEN:-
SMT. KAJAL MITTAL W/O SHRI UPVAN MITTAL, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O A-
2404 MONT VERT PUNE MAHARASHTRA
(MAHARASHTRA)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI DR. ANUVAD SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
GORAKHPUR DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PRACHI RELAN D/O RAKESH RELAN, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION
B-19, RAJUL RESIDENCY, NARMADA ROAD, P.S.
GORAKHPUR, JABALPUR, DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)
These applications coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This order shall govern disposal of M.Cr.C.No. 35604/2021 as well. For
the sake of convenience, the facts, as detailed in M.Cr.C.No.35565/2021 are
being taken note of.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the marriage of the
applicant No.3 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 01.12.2016. Soon after
marriage, the respondent No.2 went to United State of America (USA) with the
applicant No.3. As, the applicant No.3 could not attend the marriage of brother
of respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 having got annoyed, lodged the
report with Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur. On the basis of which,
an First Information Report vide Crime No.528/2020 dated 30.09.2020 was
registered. In the First Information Report, the allegations were levelled against
all the applicants but there are no specific allegations against the present
applicants. There were no disclosure of any specific date, time and place when
the respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty and only on the basis of vague
and omnibus allegations, the present applicants were implicated. It is contended
by the counsel that in M.Cr.C.No.35565/2021 (Smt. Renu Sood and others vs.
State of M.P. and another) challenge is to the proceedings at the behest of
mother-in-law (applicant No.1), father-in-law (applicant No.2) and husband of
the respondent No.2 and in connected M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021 (Smt. Kajal
Mittal vs. State of M.P. and another), the proceedings are being assailed by
sister-in-law (Nanad) of the respondent No.2.
3 . It is contended by the counsel that the applicant (Smt. Kajal Mittal)
who is sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 was not even residing in Kota, yet
she has been implicated. It is further contended by the counsel that the First
Information Report specifically reveals that the entire allegations are baseless,
unsustainable and ill founded. Counsel thus while placing reliance on the
decisions of Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and Others vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472, Rashmi
Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2019 CRI.
L.J. 3450 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. The State of
Bihar and Others in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 dated 08.02.2022,
submits that the petitions filed by the present applicants deserve to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State contends
that the present petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the present
applicants deserve to be dismissed. There are unequivocal and categorical
allegations against the present applicants which require adjudication after due
sifting of the evidence. The interference at this premature stage, is not warranted
as prima facie, the First Information Report discloses direct allegations against
the present applicants. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Manik B vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and Another in
SLP (Crl) No.2924/2023 and submits that the Apex Court discussed the
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. The counsel has also
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Gujarat vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1294 and submitted that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also adopted the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent No.1/State. It is
contended by the counsel that the lodging of First Information Report at
Jabalpur cannot be disputed by the present applicants in view of the judgment
of the Apex Court in Ruhi vs. Anees Ahmad and Others in Criminal
Appeal No. 7/2020 dated 06.01.2020. It is further contended that there are
direct allegations against the present applicants, therefore, the inherent powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in the present case.
6. No other point is argued or pressed by both the parties.
7. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the
record.
8. In order to deal with the rival contention, it is relevant to take into
consideration the First Information Report which was lodged by the respondent
No.2 on 30.09.2020. On perusal of First Information Report it reflects that in
clause 5 of the complaint it was alleged by the respondent No.2 when she
reached Kota after marriage, her ornaments which were "Streedhan" of her,
were taken by his mother-in-law (applicant No.1). In clause 6 of the complaint it
is mentioned that after 10 days from the date of her marriage, at the house of
Smt. Kajal Mittal who is sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 (applicant in
connected petition i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021), the complainant was abused
and was also threatened and in clause 6 the allegations against the mother-in-law
(applicant No.1), father-in-law (applicant No.2) and husband of the respondent
No.2 (applicant No.3) are jointly levelled. In clause 7 of the complaint, it is
mentioned that the husband and sister-in-law (nanad) of the respondent No.2,
demanded the salary which was earned by the respondent No.2 before her
marriage. In clause 8 it is mentioned that when respondent No.2 left for USA,
her clothes which were left behind, were used by her sister-in-law (Nanad-
applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021). In clause 9 it is
alleged that the father-in-law (applicant No.2) used to abuse the respondent
No.2 on telephone. In clause 10, it was alleged that the husband (applicant
No.3) of the respondent No.2, kept her as a hostage. Then in clauses
11,12,13,14, 15 and 16 there are allegations against the husband of the
respondent No.2. In clause 17, there are allegations that in-laws demanded
dowry, without specifying the name of any particular person. Clauses 18, 19,
20, 21, 22 and 23 also refer to applicant No.3 who is husband of the respondent
No.2. Clauses 25, 26 and 27 also pertains to the husband of the respondent
No.2.
9. Therefore, a close reading of entire complaint moved by respondent
No.2 reflect that apart from the allegations against applicant No.3 who is
husband of the respondent No.2, there is allegations in clause 5 that applicant
No.1 (mother-in-law) had taken the ornaments of respondent No.2 and in clause
6 there are general and omnibus allegations against all i.e. mother-in-law
(applicant No.1), father-in-law (applicant No.2), husband (applicant No.3) and
sister-in-law (applicant in connected petition i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021). Apart
from clauses 5 and 6 of the complaint, there is no reference of applicant No.1
who is mother-in-law of the respondent No.2 in rest of the complaint.
10. So far as sister-in-law Smt. Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case
i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) is concerned, clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the complaint
refer to the allegations which are levelled against Smt. Kanal Mittal. In clause 6
of the complaint, it is mentioned by the respondent No.2 that after 10 days,
there was a fracas in the house of the Smt. Kajal Mittal who is sister-in-law
(applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) of the respondent
No.2. In clause 7 there is allegations that the husband and sister-in-law Smt.
Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021)
demanded the salary which was earned by respondent No.2 before her
marriage. In clause 8 the allegations against sister-in-law Smt. Kajal Mittal
(applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) is that when the
respondent No.2 left for USA, her clothes which were left behind, were used by
applicant i.e. Smt. Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case i.e.
M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021.
11. Here at this juncture, clause 24 of the complaint is important and the
same is reproduced as under:-
^^24- esj ngst ds diMs ,oa vU; lkeku dksVk] cksLVu ,oa esjh uun ds ?kj gSA**
12. A perusal of the aforesaid clause reflects that the respondent No.2
stated in the said clause 24 that all the clothes and articles which were given as
dowry, were in Kota, Bostan US and at the house of sister-in-law Smt. Kajal
Mittal (applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021). In the entire
complaint, the details of house of sister-in-law Smt. Kajal Mittal (applicant in
connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) has not been clarified by the
respondent No.2. Sister-in-law Smt. Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case
i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) has categorically stated in the petition that she is
resident of A-2404, Mont Vert, Pune (Maharashtra) and never stayed with the
respondent No.2. Therefore, it is evident from clause 24 of the complaint that
sister-in-law Smt. Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case i.e.
M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) was not living in the common house hold. On the
contrary, she was living separately. In the entire complaint, respondent No.2 has
not clarified that what was the address of the residence of sister-in-law Smt.
Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021). Clause 8
of the complaint, there are allegations against sister-in-law Smt. Kajal Mittal
(applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) of respondent No.2
that she used the clothes which were left by respondent No.2 while living for
United State. The said allegation cannot be termed as causing cruelty to the
complainant/respondent No.2.
13. Therefore, the aforesaid analysis of the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 reflects that so far as the applicant No.1 Smt. Renu Sood and
Smt. Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) are
concerned, only vague, omnibus and general allegations have been levelled
against them. Even an attempt has been made by the respondent No2. to not to
disclose the place of abode of Smt. Komal Mittal (applicant in connected case
i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021). Though, in clause 24 of the complaint, the house
of Smt. Kajal Mittal was mentioned as a separate house which is neither at Kota
nor at Bostan (US) but where is said house this fact has not been clarified by
the respondent No.2.
14. Thus, there are no details of time, place and date on which, the
respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty at the behest of applicant No.1 Smt.
Renu Sood and applicant Smt. Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case i.e.
M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021).
15. The applicant No.1 Smt. Renu Sood and applicant Smt. Kajal Mittal
(applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) have been implicated
as they are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 and the said
aspect where the relatives of the husband are roped in the cases of demand of
dowry, has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam (supra).
16. The Apex Court in Kahakashan Kausar alias Sonam and others
v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6SCC 599] in paragraphs 16 and 18 has
held as under:
"16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v.
State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it
was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)
" 6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding against the
distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and
dowry deaths. 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."
* * *
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of
t h e FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are
levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all
accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her
pregnancy". Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have
been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the
appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the
general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation
wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in
furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and
omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of
small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not
appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined
the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the
appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being
general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
17. In the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023
LiveLaw (SC) 731] the Apex Court in paragraph 13 and 16 has held as under:
"13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash
criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of
matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin.
Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of
some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar
alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC
599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the
High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences,
including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that
required determination was whether allegations made against the in-
laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be
quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was
expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased
tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes.
This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of
that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against
the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution
in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in
an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial,
leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the
accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
* * *
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali
and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of
2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused
comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed,
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous
or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to
look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further
observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings,
the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read
between the lines."
18. Therefore, if the case in hand is subjected to deep scrutiny it would
reveal that omnibus and bald allegations have been levelled by the respondent
No.2 in First Information Report against the applicant No.1 Smt. Renu Sood
and applicant Smt. Kajal Mittal in connected M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021.
Undisputedly, Smt. Kajal Mittal (applicant in connected case i.e.
M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) not residing with the respondent No.2 and she was
residing separately at A-2404, Mont Vert, Pune (Maharashtra) therefore, in
such an eventuality the respondent No.2 ought to have made specific
allegations.
19. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar (supra), this Court is of the considered view that so far
as the applicant No.1 Smt. Renu Sood and applicant Smt. Kajal Mittal
(applicant in connected case i.e. M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021) are concerned, as
there are no specific allegations, thus in view of the law enunciated by the Apex
Court in the aforementioned decisions, this Court is of the considered view that
t h e prosecution launched against them is ill-founded and based on vague,
general and bald allegations against them. There is no specific overt act
attributed to them so as to attract the allegations.
20. Thus, the First Information Report registered vide Crime
No.528/2020 dated 30.09.2020 under Section 498-A/34 of IPC, Charge Sheet
and all ensued proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class Jabalpur stand quashed so far as they relate to applicant No.1 Smt. Renu
Sood and applicant Smt. Kajal Mittal in connected case i.e.
M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021. They are discharged of the charges framed against
them. Bail bond if executed by the applicants also stand discharged.
21. So far as the applicant No.2 and 3 are concerned, in clause 9 of the
complaint, there are allegations against the applicant No.2 who is father-in-law
of the respondent No.2 that he abused the respondent No.2 on telephone on
number of occasions. Simultaneously, there are allegations against the applicant
No.3 who is husband of the respondent No.2 in aforesaid different clauses of
the complaint.
22. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that prima facie, the
First Information Report discloses allegations against the applicant No.2 (father-
in-law) and applicant No.3 (husband) of the respondent No.2. Accordingly, the
present petition stands dismissed so far as they relate to applicant No.2 (father-
in-law) and applicant No. 3 (husband of the respondent No.2).
2 3 . Accordingly, M.Cr.C.No.35565/2021 stands partly allowed and
M.Cr.C.No.35604/2021 stands allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
