Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Gaur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14323 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. ANIL GAUR S/O GOKUL PRASAD GAUR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED EMPLOYEE M.I.J.A-77, SONAGIRI,
BHEL PIPLANI BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SWATI SINGH @ SWATI GAUR W/O SUSHIL
SINGH @ SUSHIL GAUR, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
M.I.J. A-77, SONAGIRI, BHEL, PIPLANI,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MAMTA W/O ANIL GAUR, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
M.I.J. A-77, SONAGIRI, BHEL, PIPLANI,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SWAPNIL GAUR S/O ANIL GAUR, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
JOB R/O M.I.J. A-77, SONAGIRI, BHEL,
PIPLANI, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHILA
THANA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. PARIDHI SRIVASTAVA W/O SWAPNIL
GAUR D/O PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O ANAND VIDYA
2
MANDIR, H.S. SCHOOL, BANK COLONY,
JAHANGIRABAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI K. S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1 / STATE AND SHRI SARTHAK NEMA - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2.)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No.6/2022 registered at Police Station
Mahila Thana, Bhopal, for offence under Sections 498-A, 377, 34 of
IPC and Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Applicant no.1 is father-in-law, applicant no.2 is sister-in-law (Nanad),
applicant no.3 is mother-in-law and applicant no.4 is husband of
respondent no. 2 / complainant.
3. As per the prosecution case, respondent no.2 lodged an FIR to the
effect that she got married to applicant no. 4 on 16.2.2021 as per Hindu
Rites and Rituals. At the time of marriage, they had specifically stated
that they do not want any dowry or money because they have
everything with them. During Lagun rituals, her father had given cash
amount of Rs.1 lac, gold chain and clothes to all the guests and had
spent approximately Rs.5 lacs. Immediately thereafter, the behavior of
the applicants was changed and they started behaving in a very
indifferent manner. They insisted that all the expenses of marriage
should be borne by her father which was accepted by him and he spent
approximately Rs.20 lacs. On the first date of her marriage, she was
insulted by the applicants in front of the relatives by alleging that they
were getting offers from various rich families but under an impression
that since father of respondent no. 2 is a respectable person in the
society and has lot of money, therefore, they accepted relationship.
Since, respondent no. 2 felt bad about it, therefore, informed this
incident to her husband, i.e. applicant no.4, who also said that marriage
was performed like beggers. During her honeymoon trip to Goa,
unnatural physical relationship was also made out by applicant no.4.
Even after coming back to Bhopal, applicant no. 4 had made unnatural
sexual intercourse with her. Applicant no. 4 was also insisting that
respondent no. 2 must undergo medical examination to verify as to
whether she is a healthy woman or not. Although in the medical
examination she was found to be healthy but in spite of that, the
applicants were harassing her mentally. Applicant no.4 took
respondent no. 2 as well as applicant no.3 to Chennai and on 13.3.2021
in front of applicant no.3; applicant no. 4 started shouting in respect of
their personal and private relationship which was to be annoyance of
respondent no. 2. When she objected to it, then applicant no. 4 started
abusing her and applicant no. 3 instead of stopping applicant no. 4 also
started taking his side. When respondent no. 2 felt bad about the
conduct of the applicants then they started alleging that respondent no.
2 is a mentally retarded person and also insisted that she should get
herself treated by a psychiatric and on 8.5.2021 they took her to Bansal
hospital where she was left all alone. In spite of insistence by the
doctor, applicant no.4 did not come back. Thereafter, she called her
Bhabhi and informed her about the atrocities by her in-laws. Applicant
no. 4 also used to abuse her parents, brother and Bhabhi. He was also
sharing her personal incidents with his parents and sister. Even
applicant no.1 had told her that she is not in a position to satisfy his
son. However, in order to save her family life, she was somehow
managing the affairs. With an intention to defame her and her family
members, various objectionable posts were uploaded on face book,
whatsapp and other digital platforms, as a result, her family got
defamed in the society and she also suffered mental harassment.
Applicants no. 1 to 3 were all the time scolding that her father had not
given anything in the dowry. Accordingly, they demanded that since
her father has lot of money, therefore, one four wheeler, one flat and
Rs.10 lacs be given only then she may come back.
4. Challenging the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2, it is submitted by
counsel for applicants that it is well established principle of law that
near and dear relatives of the husband of respondent no. 2 should not
be compelled to undergo ordeals of criminal trial. The allegations are
vague, omnibus, general in nature and therefore, the FIR and criminal
proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, counsel for the State has supported the prosecution case and
submitted that specific allegations have been made against the
applicants and, therefore, it does not require any interference.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. As already pointed out, applicant no. 1 is father-in-law, applicant no. 3
is mother-in-law and applicant no. 4 is husband whereas applicant no.
2 is sister-in-law (Nanad). So far as applicant no. 3 (mother-in-law) is
concerned, it is suffice to mention here that being a lady, she was
expected to protect another lady, i.e. her daughter-in-law, but instead
of doing so, it was alleged that she was also scolding the respondent
no. 2.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Meera Vs. State By The Inspector
of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai, reported in (2022) 3
SCC 93, has held that "when an offence has been committed by a
woman by meeting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-
law, it becomes a more serious offence. Such woman deserves no
leniency. Mother-in-law must protect daughter-in-law."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has
held as under:-
"12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of
U.P. [Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014)
16 SCC 551], it was observed (SCC p. 553, paras 8-9):
"8. We have gone through the FIR and the
criminal complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have
not been named and in the criminal complaint they
have been named without attributing any specific
role to them. The relationship of the appellants with
the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab,
(2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935 : (2000) 3
SCR 662] it was observed (SCC p. 217, para 5):
"5. ... A tendency has, however, developed for
roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased
wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the
prosecution even against the real culprits. In their
overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for
maximum people, the parents of the deceased have
been found to be making efforts for involving other
relations which ultimately weaken the case of the
prosecution even against the real accused as appears
to have happened in the instant case."
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant
relatives without there being specific material. Only the
husband, his parents or at best close family members may
be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not
distant relations, unless there is tangible material to
support allegations made against such distant relations.
Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon
them in the absence of any specific role and material to
support such role.
9. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a
criminal complaint are well known. If there are triable
issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity of
the rival versions but where on the face of it, the criminal
proceedings are abuse of Court's process, quashing
jurisdiction can be exercised. Reference may be made
to K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar [K.
Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 547 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 27] , Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial
Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate,
(1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] , State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992
SC 604] and Asmathunnisa v. State of
A.P. [Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P., (2011) 11 SCC 259 :
(2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 159] "
13. In the present case, the complaint is as follows:
"Sir, it is submitted that I was married on 18-11-2009
with Sidharath Parakh s/o Manak Chand Parakh r/o Sarafa
Bazar in front of Radha Krishna Market, Gwalior
according to the Hindu rites and customs. In the marriage
my father had given gold and silver ornaments, cash
amount and household goods according to his capacity.
After the marriage when I went to my matrimonial home, I
was treated nicely by the members of the family. When on
the second occasion I went to my matrimonial home, my
husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing
me for not bringing the dowry and started saying that I
should bring from my father 25-30 tolas of gold and Rs
2,00,000 in cash and only then they would keep me in the
house otherwise not. On account of this my husband also
used to beat me and my father-in-law and my mother-in-
law used to torture me by giving the taunts. In this
connection I used to tell my father Kundanmal Oswal, my
mother Smt Prem Lata Oswal, uncle Ashok Rai Sharma
and uncle Ved Prakash Mishra from time to time. On 2-4-
2010 the members of the family of my matrimonial home
forcibly sent me to the house of my parents in Ganj
Basoda along with my brother Deepak. They snatched my
clothes and ornaments and kept with them. Since then till
today my husband has been harassing me on the telephone
and has not come to take me back. Being compelled, I
have been moving this application before you. Sir, it is
prayed that action be taken against husband Sidharath
Parakh, my father-in-law Manak Chand Parakh and my
mother-in-law Smt Indira Parakh for torturing me on
account of demanding dowry.
14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that
even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made
out. There are allegations against Respondent 2 and his
parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to
leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be
separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends
lack of security and safety and proper environment in the
matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has
in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of
trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made
out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not
permissible.
10. So far as the correctness of the allegations made by respondent no. 2 is
concerned, it is suffice to mention here that this Court in exercise of
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can look into uncontroverted
allegations only and the defence of the accused persons cannot be
looked into. If the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR are
considered on their face value, then it is clear that there are specific
allegations against the applicants no. 1, 3 and 4. Accordingly, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
quashment of FIR and criminal proceedings so far as it relates to
applicant no. 1 father-in-law, applicant no. 3 mother-in-law and
applicant no. 4 husband of respondent no. 2.
11. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether the
allegations made in the FIR are sufficient to prosecute the applicant no.
2 sister-in-law.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab,
reported in (2000) 5 SCC 207, has held as under:
"In the light of the evidence in the case we find
substance in the submission of the learned counsel for
the defence that Respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the
case only on the ground of being close relations of
Respondent 2, the husband of the deceased. For the
fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations
cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the
demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are
made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than the
husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such
relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating
to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed
for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased
wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the
prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over
enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for
maximum people, the parents of the deceased have
been found to be making efforts for involving other
relations which ultimately weaken the case of the
prosecution even against the real accused as appears to
have happened in the instant case."
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy v. State of W.B., (2015)
13 SCC 693: has held as under:-
8. While we do not find any ground to interfere with the
view taken by the courts below that the deceased was
subjected to harassment on account of non-fulfilment of
dowry demand, we do find merit in the submission that
possibility of naming all the family members by way of
exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans Raj [(2000) 5
SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] , this Court observed:
(SCC p. 215, para 5)
"5. ... A tendency has, however, developed for
roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased
wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the
prosecution even against the real culprits. In their
overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for
maximum people, the parents of the deceased have
been found to be making efforts for involving other
relations which ultimately weaken the case of the
prosecution even against the real accused as appears
to have happened in the instant case."
The court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant
relatives without there being specific material. Only the
husband, his parents or at best close family members
may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife
but not distant relations, unless there is tangible
material to support allegations made against such
distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not
enough to summon them in the absence of any specific
role and material to support such role.
9. In Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 15
SCC 415 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 539] it was observed:
(SCC p. 419, para 14)
"14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5
Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the deceased
Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the
deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told
them that dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal
Singh, but also the appellants Pradip Singh and his
wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of the opinion that it
is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and
Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread
the net wide as often happens in cases like under
Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as has been observed
in several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh
Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 511] , etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of
Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and set aside the
impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial
court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that
they be released forthwith unless required in
connection with some other case."
* * * * * *
11. The court has to adopt a pragmatic view and when a
girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand of
dowry or harassment which follows cannot be weighed
in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus allegation
against all family members particularly against the
brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on
the same footing as husband and parents. In such case,
apart from general allegation of demand of dowry, the
court has to be satisfied that harassment was also
caused by all the named members.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155 has held as under:-
"8. We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's
view on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we
confirm the view. However, after a careful perusal of
the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR
lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to
appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The
allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific
role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent
2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her
husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether
appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at
Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and
respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003
i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter,
respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against
the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the
present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and
general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is
important to remember that appellant 2 is a married
sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay
in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the
truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2
against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case,
general in nature. We have no doubt that by making
such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has
tried to rope them in this case along with her husband.
We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of
the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3
pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In
the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be
quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3."
15. Thus, it is clear that in the FIR except by saying that applicant no. 2
along with other family members was also scolding respondent no. 2,
no other specific and clear allegations have been made against her. The
allegations made against applicant no. 2 are vague, omnibus and
general in nature.
16. Thus, by applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the
case of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC
741 and Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 667, it is held that allegations
made against applicant no. 2 are not sufficient to prosecute her for
offence under Sections 498-A, 377, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
17. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No.6/22 registered at Mahila Thana,
Bhopal and criminal prosecution thereof qua applicant no. 2 sister-in-
law is hereby quashed and criminal prosecution of applicant no. 1
(father-in-law), applicant no.3 (mother-in-law) and applicant no. 4
(husband) shall continue.
18. Application filed by applicant no.2 is hereby allowed whereas the
application filed by applicants no.1, 3 and 4 is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
JP
