Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chandra Shekhar Mehra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024

Author: Vishal Mishra

Bench: Vishal Mishra

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14086 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
1. CHANDRA SHEKHAR MEHRA S/O LATE SHRIRAM
MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE HOUSE NO. 427 GULJARI KA BAGICHA
SANJAY TALKIES ROAD SEHORE TEH. AND
DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SMT. USHA DEVI W/O LATE SHRIRAM MEHRA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE HOUSE NO. 427 GULJARI KA
BAGICHA SANJAY TALKIES ROAD SEHORE TEH.
AND DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI ASHISH SINHA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. P.S.
MAHILA THANA DISTT. BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)

2. SANGEETA MEHRA W/O CHANDRA SHEKHAR
MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, E.W.S 645
KOTRA SULTANABAD IN FRONT OF SHEETLA
MATA MANDIR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI A.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI NISHANT
AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )

This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of criminal FIR as well as the criminal proceedings instituted against

the applicant.

2. It is the case of the applicant that marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 04.05.2003 according to hindu rites and customs. Applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law. On 05.10.2020, the complaint was lodged by the wife at Police Station Mahila Thana District Bhopal against the applicants levying allegations of demand of dowry and cruel treatment. As per the prosecution story after five years of marriage the applicant has started demand for dowry and on refusal on part of the complainant they started cruel treatment with the complainant. The complainant tolerated the harassment just to save her matrimonial relationship and family. On 16.05.2020, they demanded

Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and on refusal of the same she was ill- treated assaulted and was thrown out of the house and since then she is residing with her parents.

3. On report being made the case has been taken up for investigation and FIR was registered by the police authorities for offence under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC at Crime No.112/2020 at Mahila Police Station, Bhopal. After completion of investigation the final report has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal and case was fixed for framing of charges. It is argued that if the entire contents of the FIR is seen, then no charges under Section 498-A of the IPC is made out against the petitioners. The marriage took place in the year 2003 and the FIR has been lodged on 16.05.2020 i.e. after a lapse of 17 years from the date of marriage. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that out of the wedlock two sons were born. The FIR has been registered after 17 years which goes to show that for 17 years she has resided happily with the family and there were no prior complaints made against the family.The only explanation that is

given is that she was making best efforts to save her family therefore she has not reported the incident. But when on 16.05.2020 the ill treatment and harassment has exceeded and she was thrown out of the house, she had no other option except to file complaint. It is contended that omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners without pointing out any specific date of incident. Therefore, they have filed this petition seeking quashment of FIR and other criminal proceedings which have been registered.

4. It is further pointed out that on 16.05.2020, when she left the house owing to certain dispute, the husband on 27.05.2020 has sent a registered notice asking her to come back, but there was no response. On 08.06.2020, he has filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal right before the competent court. The same is pending consideration. The FIR has been registered on 05.10.2020, as a counterblast to application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband has made all possible efforts to bring back his wife. There may be small disputes between husband and wife for which harassment and demand of dowry could not be alleged against the husband as well as the mother-in-law. The entire FIR lays down allegations against the husband and at the last the name of the mother-in-law is also added pointing out that she also used to raise demand of Rs.5,00,000/-.

5. It is argued that in series of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

considered aforesaid aspect of the matter i.e. filing of FIR and roping the entire family in the criminal prosecution. Therefore, he has prayed for quashment of FIR and other criminal proceedings.

6. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the contentions and submitted that there are specific allegations made in the FIR against the husband and mother-in-law. The entire family has not been roped up

in the case. The FIR has been registered only against husband and mother-in- law who have harassed and made demand of dowry. Sufficient reasons are being assigned for not lodging a complaint regarding harassment and demand of dowry because the wife was making all possible efforts to save the marital relationship. But when there was no change in the nature of the husband as well as mother-in-law and when she was beaten and pushed out of the house she was having no other option except to lodge and FIR against them.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in M.Cr.C. No.46355/2019 (Nitish Umariya and others v. The State of M.P. and another) dated 04.03.2024 to the effect that the FIR registered subsequently cannot always be treated to be a counterblast to the action taken by the husband. There are several reasons available to the same. They are required to be taken note of. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute to the fact that marriage has taken place in the year 2003 and the complaint was made on 16.05.2020 i.e. after 17 years of marriage. Two children were born out of the wedlock which is not disputed. The allegations made in the complaint are that there was a regular demand of dowry made against the husband. He used to make comments on the character of the wife and harassed her by making demand for dowry. But she kept quite just to save her family. When the husband's service was terminated he started his clinic at that time he made a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- for opening the clinic. When the wife refused for the same pointing out the fact that her father is not in a position to give such huge amount then she was physically and mentally harassed. Even

the incident of beating, harassing and pushing her out of the house was reported. The verbatim of the FIR reflects that the entire act has been done by the husband. The name of the mother-in-law has been added in the last regarding making demand of Rs.5,00,000/-.

10. The law with respect to interference in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR and criminal proceedings is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases. Recently, in the case of Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online 315 it is held -

"80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or ''no coercive steps to be adopted'' during the investigation or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:-

(i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

(ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

(iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

(iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty);

(v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

(vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

(viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

(ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

(x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

(xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.

Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts t o abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

(xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

(xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

(xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit

the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

(xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or no coercive steps to be adopted and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

(xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 2 2 6 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Co u r t has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order;

(xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of no coercive steps to be adopted within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by no coercive steps to be adopted as the term no coercive steps to be adopted can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."

11. After going through the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niharika Infrastructure (supra) it is apparently clear that there is very limited scope of interference in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR and criminal proceedings. But the tendency to rope up

the entire family in a criminal case is also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. MANU/SC/0895/2012 : (2012) 10 SCC 741 wherein it is observed- :-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 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, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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.""

13. In the present case also there are specific allegations made against the husband regarding demand of dowry and harassment and incident of beating by the husband. However, the name of the mother-in-law is reflected in the FIR and there is an allegation regarding demand of dowry but only at the end of complaint. Therefore, to that aspect interference is called for.

14. The aspect that the FIR has been registered as a counterblast to the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, the

aforesaid aspect is considered by the The Supreme Court is the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 as 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 the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. We have already noted the illustrations enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case 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 herein above. The High Court has drawn an adverse inference on account of the FIR being lodged on 31st December, 2001 while the appellant was forced out of the matrimonial home on 25th May, 2001.

15- In our view, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant- wife for lodging the FIR on 31st December, 2001 on the ground that she had left the matrimonial home atleast 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 the respondent No.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 the respondent No.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 the respondent No.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."

15. Therefore it cannot be said that FIR in the present case is registered as a counter blast to Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act proceedings.

16. Considering the aforesaid proposition laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as the main motive of applicants are reflected in the FIR and there are allegations made against them coupled with the fact that there is sufficient explanation on not lodging the FIR on the earlier ocassion as the wife was always making efforts to save the family. No interference is called for in the present petition as far as husband/petitioner No.1 is concerned.

17. Husband is the person who is responsible to take care of wife. He is her guardian and responsible for any indecent behaviour or harassment being caused to her. He is duty bound to take all possible steps to protect her and to provide her pleasant atmosphere in her matrimonial house. In the present marriage took place 17 years ago. FIR discloses specific allegation against husband, name of mother-in-law is added at the end. This goes to show that she has been roped up in the case. She is aged about 62 years.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Suppl. SCC 335 has laid down certain guidelines. The case of the husband does not fall under any of the parameters which have been framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra).

19. Under these circumstances and considering the law laid down in aforesaid

cases, the criminal proceedings against husband i.e. applicant No.1 are proper and does not require any interference. Hence, petition by applicant No.1 is dismissed. For applicant No.2 for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the criminal proceedings cannot continue. Hence, they are quashed.

20. Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE LR