Prateek Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal
2024 Latest Caselaw 13352 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prateek Tripathi vs Vidhi Rawal on 9 May, 2024

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                              1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT INDORE
                          BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                  ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2024
          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52308 of 2022

  BETWEEN:-
  SHAURABH KUMAR TRIPATHI S/O SHRI
  VIVEKANAND TIWARI (TRIPATHI), AGED
  ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O - HOUSE NO. 1154 KHASRA
  NO. 252 GROUND FLOOR, STREET NO. 10,
  SUSHANT VIHAR, IBRAHIMPUR NORTH WEST
  DELHI (DELHI)
                                                 .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI PRABAL JAIN -ADVOCATE)


  AND
  VIDHI RAWAL W/O PRATEEK TRIPATHI, AGED
  ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O - LIG 62, CIVIL LINES,
  THANA KOTWALI, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....RESPONDENT
  (BY SHRI AVIRAL VIKAS KHARE - ADVOCATE)

           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3363 of 2023

  BETWEEN:-
1. PRATEEK TRIPATHI S/O SHRI VIVEKANAND
  TIWARI (TRIPATHI), AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION: SERVICE.

2. VIVEKANAND TIWARI S/O SHRI SHIVDHAN
   TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
   RETIRED.

3. MITRA TIWARI W/O SHRI VIVEKANAND
   TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION
   HOUSEWIFE
                                             2


     ALL R/O HOUSE NO. 287, LIG AWAS VIKAS
     COLONY,   JHUSI,   PRAYAGRAJ,   JHUSI,
     ALLAHABAD (UTTAR PRADESH)
                                                                  .....PETITIONERS
     (BY SHRI PRABAL JAIN -ADVOCATE)


     AND
     VIDHI RAWAL W/O PRATEEK TRIPATHI, AGED
     ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O - LIG 62, CIVIL LINES,
     THANA KOTWALI, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                  .....RESPONDENT
     (BY SHRI AVIRAL VIKAS KHARE - ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     These applications coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
                               ORDER

This order shall govern the disposal of MCRC No.52308/2022 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) and MCRC No.3363/2023 (Prateek Tripathi and others Vs. Vidhi Rawal) as both these petitions arise out of the same MJCR No.215/2022.

2. The petitioners have preferred both these separate petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceeding of MJCR No.215/2022 filed by the respondent under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short "DV Act"), which is pending before the JMFC, Dewas.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Prateek Tripathi was married with the respondent Vidhi Rawal on 12.12.2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Dewas. Out of their wedlock no child has been born. On 7.1.2022 respondent lodged an FIR at P.S. Mahila Thana, Dewas by stating that Vivekanand Tiwari and Shaurabh Tiwari are her father-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively and Mira Tiwari is her

mother-in-law. After few days of her marriage she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by her husband on account of non fulfilment of his demand of dowry. Her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law tortured her by taunting regarding the demand of dowry. Then she went to Johannesburg (South Africa) for doing her job. When she returned, then accused persons again tortured her for demand of dowry of Rs.20 Lakh cash and SUV top model car. Accordingly offence has been registered against the petitioners. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has lodged a false, fabricated, omnibus and baseless FIR against the petitioners. After receiving notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. petitioners have filed a detailed representation dated 23.2.2022 before the investigating officer. To counterblast the said representation, respondent has malafidely filed MJCR bearing No.215/2022 on 2.3.2022 against the petitioners before the JMFC/7th Civil Judge Class- 2, Dewas. It is an abuse of provisions of DV Act. Only false, vague and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. There is no legal evidence to connect them with the aforesaid allegations and there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against them under the said Act. Notice has been issued against them. Hence, he prays for quashment of proceedings of MJCR No.215/2022 dated 2.3.2022 and all other consequential proceedings. He has also placed reliance upon the judgments in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [(2012) 13 SCC 614], in the case of Almuddin Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2016 SCC OnLine MP 8732] and in the

case of Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs. Prachi [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1607].

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that there is ample evidence available on record against the petitioners. Respondent was subjected to cruelty in respect of demand of dowry. Prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Charges have been framed against the petitioners which was not challenged by the petitioners, therefore, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774.

6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

7. So far as the first objection regarding the maintainability of this petition raised by the respondent is concerned, although the trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners and the order of framing of charge was not challenged by the petitioners by filing any criminal revision, but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others reported in (1983) 1 SCC 1 has held that:-

"the scope, ambit and range of Section 482 is quite different from the powers conferred under Section 397(2) and there is no inconsistency between the two power under Section 482 is not merely a revisional power meant to be exercised against the orders passed by subordinate Courts. Section 482 confers a separate and independent power on the High Court alone to pass

order ex debito justitiae in case where grave and substantial injustice has been done or where the process of the court has been seriously abused. The inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. Further, the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly."

8. On the basis of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the order of framing of charge had not been challenged by the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., even this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which are the extraordinary jurisdiction and residuary powers. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondent No.2 is not acceptable.

9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has also lodged FIR bearing Crime No.3/2022 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Dewas for the offence under Section 498-A, 504, 506 r/w S. 34 of IPC. Accordingly offence has been registered against the petitioners. Apart from the above, respondent has initiated separate proceedings under the DV Act against the petitioners. Marriage of the respondent was solemnized with the petitioner Prateek Tripathi on 12.12.2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Dewas, but later on respondent filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner Prateek Tripathi and vide judgment and decree dated 11.1.2024 in RCSHM Case No.66/2022 ex parte divorce decree has been passed in favour of the respondent and marriage of respondent and

the petitioner Prateek Tripathi has been dissolved and now they are living separately.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774 has clearly established the law that the proceedings under the DV Act are purely civil in nature attracting no penal consequences against the wrongdoers.

11. The DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation designed to protect the rights and interests of victims of domestic violence. The proceedings under Section 3/4 of DV Act is purely civil in nature, therefore, at the initial stage such proceedings cannot be quashed under exercise of extraordinary powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and no interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is warranted.

12. Consequently both these petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed.

13. Signed order be kept in the file of MCRC No.52308/2022 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of connected MCRC No.3363/2023.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary action.

C.C. as per rules.

                                                     (ANIL VERMA)
                                                         JUDGE
Trilok/-       TRILOK SINGH SAVNER
               2024.05.14 19:06:52 +05'30'