Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Suresh Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 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 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56767 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. SHRI SURESH PATEL S/O SHRI
HARGOVIND PATEL, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, OCCUPATION: CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANT R/O VILLAGE PATORI
TAHSIL PAWAI P.S. PAWAI DISTRICT
PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI HARGOVIND PATEL S/O LATE SHRI
DARBARI LAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 66
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE PATORI TAHSIL PAWAI P.S
PAWAI, DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. LADKUNWAR PATEL S/O SHRI
HARGOVIND PATEL, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
VILLAGE PATORI TAH. PAWAI P.S PAWAI
DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI J. P. PATEL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
P.S. CIVIL LINES DISTRICT CHHATARPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. AKANSHA PATEL W/O SHRI SURESH
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, CHOUBEY
COLONY NEAR STADIUM BEHIND DR.
PRABHA KHARE CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2
3. SMT. PRABHA DEVI PATEL W/O SHRI
JUGAL KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
CHOUBEY COLONY NEAR STADIUM
BEHIND DR. PRABHA KHARE
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DILIP PARIHAR- PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONENT NO.1 /STATE)
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.15/2020 registered at Police Station
Chhatarpur for offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w. S. 34 of
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that initially applicant no. 1
had filed a petition for divorce and only by way of counter blast, the FIR
has been lodged. Respondent no. 2 who is wife of applicant no. 1, has not
lodged the FIR. In fact, the FIR was lodged by her mother / respondent
no. 3. The allegations are false, vague and omnibus and, therefore, the
prosecution of the applicants for offences under Section 498-A r/w. S. 34
of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is unwarranted.
3. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
State. It is submitted that specific allegations have been made about the
demand of dowry as well as physical and mental harassment.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
5. As per the FIR which was lodged by respondent no. 3, the marriage of the
applicant no. 1 was solemnized with respondent no. 2 on 24.2.2014. It is
alleged that immediately after the marriage, the applicants started
harassing her physically and mentally. When she and her husband tried to
convince her that with the passage of time, the things would improve but
the applicants continued to harass respondent no. 2 for demand of Rs.10
lacs or a four wheeler in lieu thereof. On 24.3.2018 when the applicants
tried to forcibly oust respondent no. 2 from her matrimonial house, then
respondent no. 3 sent her husband to take respondent no. 2. They found
that mental condition of respondent no. 2 was not good. Her treatment
continued in Gwalior, Pune and Indore. Thereafter, applicant no. 1 made
a call for taking respondent no. 2 who was with him and accordingly, she
sent her son Ankit to Mumbai for taking respondent no. 2 back. Her son
Ankit and applicant no. 1 came back to Indore. However, from Indore,
applicant no. 1 again went back. It was further alleged that applicant no. 1
with the consent of applicants no. 2 and 3 have snatched the jewelry of
respondent no.2. On 30.11.2019 a Panchayat was convened. In the said
Panchayat, it was specifically said by the applicants that either they
should give Rs.10 lacs or a four wheeler in lieu thereof, otherwise, they
should keep the daughter with them. They also refused to get respondent
no. 2 treated. It was also alleged in the FIR that because of the mental
harassment, her daughter is not in a position to give statement.
6. It appears that MLC of respondent no. 2 was also conducted and the
doctor had also given his opinion. However, the photocopy of MLC
which has been filed along with the documents is not clear and some part
of the finding has been overlapped / covered / masked by a document
containing the details of filing of the application for certified copy as well
as delivery of the same thereof. Furthermore, in the charge sheet it is
clear that respondent no. 2 has also been cited as a witness. Statements of
respondent no. 3 and her husband Jugal Kishore, her son Ankit and
relative Ramesh have also been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in
which it has been specifically stated about physical and mental
harassment.
7. So far as the contention of the applicants that the allegations are vague
and omnibus are concerned, the said contention cannot be accepted in the
light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Taramani
Parakh v. State of M.P., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260.
8. In the case of Taramani Parakh (supra), the Supreme Court has held
as under :-
"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."
9. So far as the contention of counsel for the applicants that the FIR has
been filed by way of counter blast to the divorce petition is concerned, it
is suffice to mention here that in the light of judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, reported
in (2007) 12 SCC 369, the said contention cannot be accepted.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha (supra) has held as under
:-
"14. From a plain reading of the findings
arrived at by the High Court while quashing
the FIR, it is apparent that the High Court had
relied on extraneous considerations and acted
beyond the allegations made in the FIR for
quashing the same in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code. We
have already noted the illustrations
enumerated in Bhajan Lal case [1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and from
a careful reading of these illustrations, we are
of the view that the allegations emerging from
the FIR are not covered by any of the
illustrations as noted hereinabove. For
example, we may take up one of the findings
of the High Court as noted hereinabove. The
High Court has drawn an adverse inference on
account of the FIR being lodged on 31-12-
2001 while the appellant was forced out of the
matrimonial home on 25-5-2001.
15. In our view, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the High Court was not justified in
drawing an adverse inference against the
appellant wife for lodging the FIR on 31-12-
2001 on the ground that she had left the
matrimonial home at least six months before
that. This is because, in our view, the High
Court had failed to appreciate that the
appellant and her family members were,
during this period, making all possible efforts
to enter into a settlement so that Respondent 2
husband would take her back to the
matrimonial home. If any complaint was made
during this period, there was every possibility
of not entering into any settlement with
Respondent 2 husband.
16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint
was filed only when all efforts to return to the
matrimonial home had failed and Respondent
2 husband had filed a divorce petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
That apart, in our view, filing of a divorce
petition in a civil court cannot be a ground to
quash criminal proceedings under Section 482
of the Code as it is well settled that criminal
and civil proceedings are separate and
independent and the pendency of a civil
proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal
proceeding even if they arise out of the same
set of facts. Such being the position, we are,
therefore, of the view that the High Court
while exercising its powers under Section 482
of the Code has gone beyond the allegations
made in the FIR and has acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was
not justified in quashing the FIR by going
beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by
relying on extraneous considerations.
22. For the reasons aforesaid, we are inclined
to interfere with the order of the High Court
and hold that the High Court in quashing the
FIR in the exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code by relying on
the investigation report and the findings made
therein has acted beyond its jurisdiction. For
the purpose of finding out the commission of a
cognizable offence, the High Court was only
required to look into the allegations made in
the complaint or the FIR and to conclude
whether a prima facie offence had been made
out by the complainant in the FIR or the
complaint or not."
11. No other arguments are advanced by counsel for the applicants.
12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
interference.
13. Before parting with this order, this Court would like to mention that
observations which have been made by this Court in this order are purely
based on limited scope of jurisdiction at this stage. Any observation made
in this order except the legal position should not be construed as a
conclusive finding and the Trial Court shall decide the trial strictly in
accordance with evidence which would come on record without getting
influenced or prejudiced by this order.
14. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
JITENDRA KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64
a5a, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
PAROUHA serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF1040
2B19143AD99, cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2024.02.27 23:06:11 -08'00'
JP
