Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Kori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T IND OR E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 39275 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. ASHOK KUMAR KORI S/O SHIVNATH KORI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL
HOUSE NO.2, ABHINAV REGAL HOMES
KHAJURIKALA AVADHPURI, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHIVNATH KORI S/O LATE SHRI BAHORI
KORI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETD. GOVT. SERVANT
HOUSE NO. 2, ABHINAV REGAL HOMES
KHAJURIKALA AVADHPURI, DIST. BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI AKASH SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. AARTI GUPTA W/O ASHOK KUMAR
KORI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 508 ROYAL
KRISHNA BANGLOJ EMERALD HIDE
SCHOOL, A.B. ROAD RAU DIST INDORE
PRESENT R/O 437 MISHRILAL NAGAR, DIST.
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NISHA TANWAR - P.L. FOR STATE AND SHRI RATNESH KUMAR
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA
Signing time: 3/14/2024
6:36:01 PM
2
GUPTA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
...............................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
Heard.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.133 of 2022 at
Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore under Sections 498-A, 323, 294,
506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 Ashok
Kumar Kori and the respondent No.2 Aarti Gupta got married on
30.06.2019, and after the marriage, initially the respondent No.2 had
no problems, however, subsequently, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who
are the husband and father-in-law of the complainant, started
harassing the complainant and also used to assault her and used to
demand Rs.10 lakhs and a car in dowry.
4] It is the specific case of the complainant that on 25.11.2020, she
was pushed out of her house by the petitioners and when she got back
to her parents' house at Indore, the petitioners also came to her
parents' house and demanded Rs.10 lakhs and a car and also
threatened her, that if she enters their house without the money and a
car, she would face dire consequences. Thus, the aforesaid FIR was
lodged by the complainant under the alleging demand of dowry.
5] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated in the case as the Police Station Mahila
Thana, Indore had no jurisdiction to lodge the FIR since the
complainant herself was residing at Dewas at the time of the incident.
The documents regarding which have also been placed on record.
Counsel has also submitted that the respondent No.2's landlord Nitin
Chouhan, who is a resident of Dewas, is shown to be a resident of
Adarsh Indira Nagar, Indore, whereas, in the proceedings initiated
against the petitioner No.1 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and under the
provisions of Domestic Violence Act, the said witness Nitin Chouhan
is said to be a resident of Dewas.
6] It is submitted that a concocted FIR has been lodged against the
petitioners which is also apparent from the fact that the petitioner No.2
is a Govt. servant as he is posted as the Joint Commissioner and Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, State of M.P., and on 25.11.2020,
when the alleged incident took place, when the complainant was
kicked out of her house, the petitioner No.2 was not even present at
Dewas as he had gone to Umariya in the C.M.'s programme. The
documents obtained under the RTI Act have also been placed on
record. It is further submitted that Umariya is around 700 kms from
Dewas and there is absolutely no question that the petitioner No.2's
presence can be shown at Dewas on the date of incident. Thus, it is
submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed as the continuation
of the same would only result in further harassment of the petitioners
in a false and frivolous case, and would amount to the misuse of the
process of the Court.
7] Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decisions
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported as 2022 (6) SCC
599 and in the case of Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and
Others reported as (2008) 14 SCC 1, para 38.
8] On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant-respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer and it is
submitted that no case for interference is made out, as even if it is
assumed that the petitioner No.2 was not present on the spot when the
incident took place on 25.11.2020, however, the complainant has
made allegations against the petitioner No.1 her husband and the
petitioner No.2 her father-in-law prior to 25.11.2020 as both these
persons were harassing her to bring the dowry. It is submitted that
since the respondent No.2's parents are residing at Indore where the
petitioners had visited and demanded the dowry, it cannot be said that
the police station Mahila Thana, Indore has wrongly lodged the FIR.
Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.
9] Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10] The Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam & Ors. (supra) has 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-A IPC 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)
11] On perusal of the documents filed on record, it is found that so
far as the petitioner No.2 Shivnath Kori is concerned, he is a retired
Govt. servant having retired from the post of Joint Commissioner Co-
operative Societies, and he was not there in Dewas on 25.11.2020,
when it is alleged that he pushed the respondent No.2 out of the house.
The documents clearly reveal that he was out of station on account of
official duty and he was also not present in the month of July, 2021 at
Rau, Indore when it is alleged that he had gone to the house of the
respondent No.2 and had demanded dowry from her parents as he had
gone on a official tour to Umariya, which is around 700 kms from
Bhopal and otherwise also, he was posted at Rewa from 22.07.2019 to
31.12.2021, the official documents obtained under the RTI have also
been placed on record, which have not been rebutted by the counsel
for the respondents.
12] The Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar (Supra),
in para 38 has held as under:-
"38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to
produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his
behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as
are indicated in Section 227 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration
by the learned magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding
taken therefrom under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is free to
consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to
arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be
maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the
legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they
have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi's case
(supra) by the larger Bench to which the very same question had
been referred."
(Emphasis Supplied)
13] In such circumstances, the allegations leveled against him prima
facie appears to be false and thus, his false implication in the present
case by the respondent No.2 on account of his being the father of the
husband of the respondent No.2 cannot be ruled out.
14] In such circumstances, the FIR and the criminal proceedings so
far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, this Court is inclined to quash
the same. However, so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, whose
presence could not be denied by the petitioner no.1 and against whom,
specific allegations have also been leveled being the husband of
respondent No.2, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions
raised on his behalf for his discharge from the case.
15] As a result, the petition is partly allowed and the FIR lodged at
Crime No.133 of 2022 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore under
Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3/ 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 so far is relates to the petitioner No.2
Shivnath Kori, is hereby quashed.
16] With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
