Atul Kumar Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12902 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Atul Kumar Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                            1
                           IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                                 ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2024
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47272 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          ATUL KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI ANIL SONI, AGED ABOUT
                          36 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO 1990 NEAR PETROL PUMP
                          VIVEKANAND COLONY GULAB NAGAR MOPKA
                          BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

                                                                                         .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI SANJAY RAM TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME
                                GOVER N M EN T OF M.P. BALLABH BHAWAN
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SMT. GARIMA SONI W/O ATUL KUMAR SONI,
                                AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O WARD NO. 18, IN
                                FRONT OF MALLIKARJUN HOTEL , SHANKAR
                                PATH M G ROAD, KASAR, BALAGHAT (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BALAGHAT
                                MAHILA POLICE THANA, DISTRICT BALAGHAT
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)
                          (SHRI BRIJESH KUMAR CHOUBEY - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR vide Crime No.24/2023 registered at the Police Station, Mahila Thana

District Balaghat in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and ensued proceedings.

2. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that in the present case, the applicant is assailing the FIR (Annexure-A/1) and ensued proceedings instituted against the present applicant. It is contended by the counsel that the entire proceedings are unsustainable in view of the fact that the entire proceedings have been ensued just in order to harass and humiliate the present applicant. It is contended by the counsel that the marriage of the applicant and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 16.04.2018. On 18.12.2018, respondent no.2 left the present applicant. On 28.12.2018, the present applicant sent a legal

notice to respondent no.2 in terms of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The notice was replied by respondent no.2. Later on, the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 30.01.2019. Respondent no.2 on 11.03.2019 moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and claimed maintenance, however the said application was dismissed on 19.10.2022. Thereafter the applicant filed an application under Section 9 read with Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The said application filed by the present applicant was allowed vide order dated 19.10.2022 and a decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights was passed. That decree was communicated to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 sent her reply as well vide Annexure-A/14 and A/15 but refused to cohabit with the present applicant. Thus, the applicant later on preferred a complaint before the Superintendent of Police levelling allegations of creation of forged documents. Later on, the present applicant moved a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Bilaspur on 18.08.2023. As a counter blast to the said proceedings, respondent no.2 lodged the FIR against the applicant under Section 498-A of IPC read with Section 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that a perusal of the FIR on the face of it reflects that in absence of any cause of action, the said report has been lodged. It is contended by the counsel that the marriage had solemnized in the year 2018 and just in order to create a cause of action, a fictitious incident dated 05.07.2023 was inserted in the FIR whereas, from 2018 till July, 2023 for a period of 5 years, there was no complaint by respondent no.2 either as regards demand of dowry or cruelty. It is thus, contended by the counsel that the entire proceedings so instituted against the present applicant deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Maheshwari and Ors vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (2005 SCC OnLine MP 495), Priya Vrat Singh and Ors. vs. ShyamJi Sahai( 2008 8 SCC 232) and Swapnil and Ors. vs. State of M.P. ( 2014 13 SCC 567).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Tarun and Ors. vs. The State of M.P. and Anr. (M.Cr.C. No.8104/2017), Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and Ors. (CRR No.521/2021) and the decision of this Court in the case of Rohit Vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.2431/2019).

6. It is contended by the counsel that as the proceedings instituted under Section 498-A of IPC are counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, they deserve to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent no.2

has opposed the prayer and submitted that in the present case, the FIR on the fact of it discloses the commission of offence by the present applicant. The applicant, time and again subjected respondent no.2 to torture, she was treated with cruelty under the garb of demand of dowry. Respondent no.2 was manhandled and abused as well. It is thus contended by the counsel that the FIR does not require any interference.

8. It is further contended by the counsel that after passing of judgment and decree, the present applicant sent a notice to respondent no.2 vide Annexure-A/13. Upon receipt of said notice, respondent no.2 sent a reply (Annexure-A/15) and paragraphs 2 and 4 of the said reply are important. Despite the said reply the applicant instead of complying with the order under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, sent a counter notice to respondent no.2 dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure-A/16). It is contended by the counsel that notice contained in Annexure-A/16 itself makes it abundantly clear that there was no intention of the present applicant to live in marital bond and the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were instituted in order to collect evidence and create a defense. However, the attempt was turned out to be futile and ultimately rendered otiose, in view of respondent no.2's response contained in Annexure-A/15. Hence, it is contended by the counsel that the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Avijit Sharma vs. The State of M.P. and Anr. (M.Cr.C. No.9662/2022).

10. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

11. Heard the submissions and perused the record.

12. The present petition has been filed by the applicant seeking

quashment of the FIR and ensued proceedings. The main ground on which the applicant is laying foundation of his submissions is as regards non-compliance of a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act passed in favour of the applicant. The other contention is as regards delay in lodging the FIR and thirdly, the allegations are bald and general and do not attract any criminal liability.

13. To deal with the aforesaid grounds if the record is perused, it would reveal that a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was passed on 19.10.2022 (Annexure-A/12) in favour of the present applicant. The said decree was a by-parte decree as undisputedly counsel for respondent no.2 appeared before the trial Court. After passing of decree, the present applicant sent a notice to respondent no.2 and by the said notice, respondent no.2 was called upon to ensure compliance of judgment and decree dated 19.10.2022.

14. Paragraph 4 of the said notice is important and is reproduced herein:-

यह िक उ सूचना प के आधार पर यिद आप वयं आने म असमथ है, तो मुझे मेरे मोबाइल नंबर पर कॉल करके यह बताये िक मै आपको िकस िदनॉक को ले ने के लये आउ तािक मै आपको सस मान अपने साथ रखकर दा प य जीवन का पालन कर सकु ।

15. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph reflects that the present applicant had expressed his willingness to pick the applicant/respondent no.2 from the place which was to be fixed by respondent no.2. In response to the aforesaid, initially respondent no.2 sent a reply dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure- A/14). In the said reply, respondent no.2 mentioned in paragraph 2 that during period of stay with the present applicant, respondent no.2 was disrespected, humiliated and cursed on regular interval. Respondent no.2 submitted two

proposals i.e. one was with regard to mutual divorce and other was to continue with the legal proceedings.

16. Respondent no.2 then sent a legal notice/revised reply dated 21.12.2022 (Annexure-A/15). This revised reply of respondent no.2 is important for the purposes of instant matter inasmuch as, by this subsequent reply dated 21.12.2022, respondent no.2 had withdrawn her earlier reply dated 05.12.2022 and in paragraph 2 and 4, respondent no.2 submitted as under:-

2. That, being aggrieved by the aforementioned decree, my client is intended to adopt due course as contemplated under the law of land. However, till the aforementioned decree is in force, my client is committed to honour the same in totality and for the purpose of same your Noticee is hereby noticed to come at the residence of father of my client at Balaghat on date 23.12.2022 so that my client may accompany you to

move to Korba for restitution of conjugal rights as decreed by the Hon'ble Court. At this juncture it is to highlight that it would be not safe for my client to move alone to reach you for a long distance & journey for Korba (C.G.). As such, you Noticee is cordially invited to the temporary stay of my client at Balaghat to accompany her for Korba (C.G.). In this connection, it is further advised to you Noticee to restore all the belongings of my client at your end in Korba including her Stridhan and reach at Balaghat by the

scheduled date with pre intimation to my client so that she may make necessary arrangements for her journey and stay with you Noticee.

4. That, my client further expects good and responsible behaviour of you Noticee in future while resuming conjugal rights with my client as her previous experience in this regard is very bitter and she still suspects danger to her life & atrocities while living with you to resume her marital obligations.

17. A perusal of the aforesaid reply of respondent no.2 reflects that respondent no.2 had informed the present applicant that in order to comply with decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the applicant could pick respondent no.2 from the residence of her father on 23.12.2022 and in paragraph 4 of the said reply again respondent no.2 had expressed her suspicion regarding threat to her life as well as the atrocities.

18. In response to reply of respondent no.2 dated 21.12.2022 contained in Annexure-A/15, the present applicant instead of taking the respondent from her father's house sent a notice dated 22.12.2022. A perusal of the aforesaid notice dated 22.12.2022 reflects that the applicant did not make any effort to pick respondent no.2 from her father's house. On the contrary, a notice dated

22.12.2022 was sent to respondent no.2 which prima facie appears to be misconceived. Therefore, in view of the Annexure-A/13 to A/16, it cannot be said that respondent no.2 despite there being a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act refused to cohabit with the present applicant. On the contrary, response of the present applicant which is

contained in Annexure-A/16 dated 22.12.2022 suggests the vice versa. Thus, the aforesaid grounds have no substance.

19. So far as the ground pertaining to delay in lodging of FIR is concerned. A perusal of FIR reflects that it is mentioned in the FIR that on 25.05.2023 for the case pertaining to domestic violence, came to the house of the father of respondent no.2 and demanded Rs.15 Lakh. Later on 05.07.2023 when one of the case was fixed in the Court of JMFC, Balaghat, the present applicant again demanded Rs.15 Lakh as dowry and also abused respondent no.2. The allegations so levelled in the FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence and it cannot be said that the report was lodged with a delay inasmuch as, the FIR was lodged on 05.07.2023.

20. So far as the grounds as regards general and bald allegations are concerned. A perusal of the FIR reveals that there are specific allegations of demand by the present applicant only. It is further important to take note that in the present case only the present applicant has been named in the FIR. The FIR has not been lodged against any other family members of the present applicant. The allegations are levelled with specific date on which, respondent no.2 was subjected to cruelty and was confronted with demand of dowry.

21. Thus, considering the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

22. The judgment as relied upon by the present applicant are factually distinguishable inasmuch as, in the present case, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of respondent no.2 to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal right.

23. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn