Harnek Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 5862 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Harnek Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                            1                MCRC No.62236/2022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
              ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 62236 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1.   HARNEK SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SWARN SINGH,
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     BUSINESS R/O 1596/1, HOUSING BOARD COLONY
     KAILASH NAGAR, BHILAI, JAMUL, DISTRICT
     DURG, CHHATISGARH (CHHATTISGARH)

2.   PARVINDER SINGH S/O SHRI HARNEK SINGH,
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     BUSINESS R/O 1595/1, HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
     KAILASH NAGAR, BHILAI, JAMUL, DISTRICT
     DURG (CHHATTISGARH)

3.   SMT. CHARANJEET SINGH KAUR W/O SHRI
     HARNEK SINGH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 1596/1, HOUSING
     BOARD COLONY, KAILASH NAGAR, BHILAI,
     JAMUL, DISTRICT DURG (CHHATTISGARH)

4.   SMT. SARVJEET KAUR W/O TRILOK SINGH,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     BUSINESS R/O MI JEEVAN, HOUSING BOARD
     COLONY, KAILASH NAGAR, BHILAI, DISTRICT
     DURG (CHHATTISGARH)

5.   TRILOK SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SURJEET SINGH,
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     BUSINESS R/O WARD 15, HOUSING BOARD
     COLONY, KAILASH NAGAR, BHILAI, JAMUL,
     DISTRUCT DURG (CHHATTISGARH)

6.   INDRAJEET SINGH S/O SHRI HARNEK SINGH,
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     BUSINESS R/O 1596/1, HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
     KAILASH NAGAR, BHILAI, JAMUL, DISTRICT
     DURG (CHHATTISGARH)

                                                  .....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI KAUSTUBH SINGH - ADVOCATE)
                                   2                    MCRC No.62236/2022



AND
1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
      POLICE STATION AMLAI DISTRICT SHAHDOL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SURJEET KAUR W/O SHRI PARVINDER SINGH,
      AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.6 NEAR
      GURUDWARA COMPLEX, RAILWAY COLONY
      AMLAI,   DISTRICT  SHAHDOL     (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRIK.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1,
SHRI AMIT DUBEY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
      This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed

the following:

                                 ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.473/2021 registered at Police Station Amlai, District Shahdol.

2. Applicant No.1 is the father-in-law, applicant No.2 is the husband, applicant No.3 is the mother-in-law, applicant No.4 is the sister-in-law (nanad), applicant No.5 is the husband of sister-in-law (nandoi) and applicant No.6 is elder brother-in-law (jaith) of respondent No.2.

3. An FIR has been lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that she got married to applicant No.2 on 10.03.2016 as per Sikh rites and rituals. Her mother had given sufficient dowry in her marriage. From the next date of her marriage applicants started passing taunts on the ground of less dowry. They were alleging that since marriage has been performed by committee, therefore, nothing has been given in dowry. They used to insist upon respondent No.2 to bring Rs.10 lakhs from her parental home otherwise they used to threaten that she would be ousted from her matrimonial house. It was alleged that when she refused to accede to their demand, then they

started harrassing her mentally and they were not providing food to her and they also used to lock her inside the room. After 2 months of her marriage she came back to her parental home and informed the incident to her mother. After sometime her husband took her back to her matrimonial house and she got pregnant. Thereafter, again on the question of demand of dowry her husband started assaulting her and her in-laws started harassing her mentally and they were all the time insisting that she should bring Rs.10 lakhs otherwise applicant No.2 would remarry. On 02.08.2018 she gave birth to a boy. However, harassment continued. They used to keep her in a locked room. On 19.09.2018 her mother came to Bhilai and thereafter, she came back to her parental home. On 21.08.2021 her husband came to her parental home, at that time, she was all alone in house. He insisted that respondent No.2 must bring an amount of Rs.10 lakhs otherwise he would remarry. When she refused to accede to his demand then he started abusing her filthy in the name of mother and sister and also threatened that he would kill her. When she raised an alarm then he ran away. Whenever she lodged the complaint either in the police station or in the Court against her husband and in-laws then by keeping her under dark her husband all the time got the complaint compromised. On 13.10.2021 also her husband came to Women Police Station Shahdol alongwith in-laws and assured that he would keep the complainant properly and complaint was compromised. However, immediately thereafter applicant No.2 started quarrelling with her and insisted that unless and until she brings an amount of Rs.10 lakhs, he will not keep her and child and left her outside the police station. On account of atrocities by applicant and her in-laws, she is residing in her parental home.

4. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, It is submitted by counsel for applicants that in fact allegations made in the FIR are false. It is well established principle of law that near and dear relatives should not

be compelled to face the ordeal of criminal trial unless and until specific and clear allegations are made against them. Vague and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to prosecute near and dear relatives of the husband of respondent No.2. Applicant No.2 had filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce and only after receipt of said notice FIR has been lodged.

5. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for State as well as respondent No.2. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.2 that even wife of applicant No.6 i.e. namely Indrajeet Singh, who is the elder brother-in-law of respondent No.2 (jaith) had committed suicide by hanging herself. The suicide was committed by wife of applicant No.6 on account of harassment in the hands of applicants. It is further submitted that on multiple occasions respondent No.2 had approached the Court as well as authorities and every time applicant No.2 by keeping the respondent No.2 under dark successfully got the matter compromised but he did not improve his conduct. Applicants had compelled respondent No.2 to live in her parental home and it is submitted that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of demand of dowry is a cruelty.

6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

7. On the submissions made by counsel for respondent No.2, counsel for applicants was directed to verify as to whether wife of applicant No.6/Indrajeet Singh had also committed suicide or not?

8. After taking instructions from the applicants, it was submitted by Shri Kaustubh Singh that wife of respondent No.6 had committed suicide by hanging. However, it was submitted by counsel for applicants that no FIR was lodged in that regard.

9. Considered the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for applicants.

10. Undisputedly wife of applicant No.6 had died under suspicious circumstances and she had committed suicide by hanging. Whether it was on account of atrocities/harassment by applicants or it was for any other reason is not the subject matter of this application. Whether any FIR was lodged against the applicants on account of suicide committed by wife of applicant No.6 or not is not an important matter for disposal of this application but one thing is clear that wife of applicant No.6 had died in a suspicious circumstances having committed suicide by hanging herself. There are specific allegations against the applicants of harassment and demand of dowry. Respondent No.2 has been ousted from her matrimonial house alongwith her child.

11. So far as submission that FIR was lodged by way of counterblast to the divorce petition filed by applicant No.2 is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi and others, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369, the said submission is misconceived.

12. In the case of Pratibha (supra), the Supreme Court 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."

13. 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.

14. Furthermore, from the cause title it is clear that applicants Nos.4 and 5 are also residing in the same colony.

15. Whether applicants Nos.4 and 5 are residing in the same house or in

the same colony is a disputed question of fact which is to be considered and decided by Trial Court for the reason that in the cause title applicants Nos.4 and 5 have given different address, whereas in the Aadhar Card which they have filed alongwith the application their address is different.

16. Applicants have also filed copy of judgment passed by JMFC, Durg in Criminal Case No.10824/2016 which was registered for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act to show that applicants nos.1 to 3 were acquitted but from the plain reading of said judgment it is clear that complainant had made a specific allegation that applicants Nos.1 to 3 were harassing her on account of demand of dowry of Rs.10 lakhs but it appears that thereafter she turned hostile. In paragraph 8 of the judgment it has also been specifically mentioned that respondent No.2 had admitted that matter has been compromised. Thus, the allegation made by complainant in the FIR that on multiple occasions she made complaint to the police as well as to the Court but every time by keeping her under dark the matter was compromised is duly supported by the documents filed by applicants themselves.

17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that there is sufficient material against applicants to show that prima facie offence under Section 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 34 of Dowry Prohibition Act is made out.

18. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.

19. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc VARSHA Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

CHOUR PRADESH, 2.5.4.20=f460d4685ef5a4622238f0b59b78c 2407fd3ee2f619d9ce8e428c224c23ec8ac, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=A0506346908D8FDC4A2DA9

ASIYA 968A85B01E1D95EF7D16305535607986268 17C4267, cn=VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2024.03.13 17:59:08 +05'30'