Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Shrivas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C No.12726/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 20th OF MAY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 12726 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. RAVI SHRIVAS S/O SHRI RAMNARAYAN
SHRIVAS, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O C-66,
INDRAVIHAR COLONY, AIRPORT ROAD,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMNARAYAN SHRIVAS S/O
PREMNARAYAN SHRIVAS, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O C-66, INDRAVIHAR COLONY,
AIRPORT ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ANITA SHRIVAS W/O RAMNARAYAN
SHRIVAS, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O C-66,
INDRAVIHAR COLONY, AIRPORT ROAD,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI AMIT KUMAR SONI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF
M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. CHETNA PURWAR (SHRIVAS) W/O
RAVI SHRIVAS D/O BRIJMOHAN PUWAR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO 28
NEW GANDHI NAGAR TEELAJAMALPURA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE
STATION KOHE FIZA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-May-24
6:55:58 PM
2 M.Cr.C No.12726/2024
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
............................................................................................................................................
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
seeking following relief(s):-
"1. To quash the impugned FIR dated
09.02.2021 registered at Police Station
Kohe Fiza, Bhopal FIR no.67/2021 and all
subsequent proceedings.
2. Pass order for other relief/ direction which
this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
looking to the fact and circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice.
3. To call the record of court below.
4. Allow the petition with cost."
2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that respondent No.2
had stayed in her matrimonial house for a period of 25 days. The FIR
was lodged after the application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act
was filed on 09/01/2021. Thereafter even respondent No.2 had also filed
an application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and the
application filed by respondent No.2 has been dismissed, whereas
application filed by applicant No.1 under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage
Act has been allowed, which clearly shows that the allegations of
cruelty are false.
3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicants.
4. Applicants have filed a copy of judgment and decree dated
10/05/2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bhopal
in RCS HM No.120/2022 (under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act) and
RCS HM No.85/2021 (under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act).
5. It is well established principle of law that the findings recorded by
the Civil Court are not binding on the Criminal Court.
6. Furthermore, this Court has gone through the findings recorded by
the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bhopal in the application
filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act as well as under Section 9
of Hindu Marriage Act.
7. Certain very surprising findings have been given by the Trial
Court. In paragraph 30 of the judgment and decree, it is mentioned that
if there was a dispute between respondent No.2 and her in-laws, then
instead of directly lodging the FIR under Section 498-A of IPC, she
should have made other complaints to the Police. Therefore, it was held
that act of respondent No.2 in directly lodging the FIR under Section
498-A of IPC was unwarranted.
8. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Trial Court is per se illegal.
Cruelty has been defined under Section 498-A of IPC. Cruelty does not
mean that any cruelty done for demand of some property/ dowry only
but any act which may lead the wife to commit suicide or which may be
dangerous for her life, limb etc. would also amount to cruelty. If a wife
makes a complaint to the Police pointing out the cruelty meted out to
her, then apart from other offences, Police will have to register offence
under Section 498-A of IPC.
9. The observation made by the Trial Court that respondent No.2
should not have directly lodged the offence under Section 498-A of IPC
but she should have lodged complaint with the Police is concerned, it is
contrary to law.
10. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that one Locker in the Bank
was opened in the name of respondent No.2 and expenses for opening
the Locker were borne by respondent No.2 and even the FD which is to
be kept with the Bank also belongs to respondent No.2. However, key of
the said Locker is with the mother of applicant No.1 i.e. mother-in-law
of respondent No.2. Even during the course of arguments, it was fairly
conceded that key is with mother-in-law of respondent No.2.
11. In paragraph 34, it is mentioned that if the intention of mother-in-
law of respondent No.2 was to grab the property, then she would have
opened Locker in her solitary name but the Trial Court lost sight of the
fact that the expenses were borne by respondent No.2 and even the FD
which is to be kept with the Bank for obtaining Locker also belongs to
respondent No.2, and therefore, for that purposes it appears that a joint
Locker was opened but mother of applicant No.1/ mother-in-law of
respondent No.2 kept the key of said Locker with her. Why mother-in-
law of respondent No.2 was so keen to keep the key of said Locker has
not been considered by the Trial Court but it appears that a wrong
finding has been given that since a joint Locker was opened, therefore
mother-in-law of respondent No.2 had love and affection for respondent
No.2.
12. Be that whatever it may be, but once it is settled principle of law
that findings recorded by the Civil Court are not binding on the Criminal
Court, then this Court cannot quash the FIR on the ground that Civil
Court has dismissed the application filed by respondent No.2 under
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.
13. So far as the allegations made in the FIR are concerned, they are
specific. According to the applicants, respondent No.2 had stayed in her
matrimonial house for 25 days.
14. In view of short period of stay, it cannot be said that allegations
are vague. Disclosure of date would be required when allegations are
spread for years together. Once the stay of respondent No.2 in her
matrimonial house was only for 25 days, then that short tenure by itself
is sufficient to consider the allegations and it cannot be said that since
specific dates of atrocities have not been disclosed by respondent No.2,
therefore allegations are vague and general in nature.
15. 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.
(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 (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, (2000) 8 SCC 547
: 2001 SCC (Cri) 27, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri)
1400, 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., (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."
16. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
interference.
17. Accordingly, application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
S.M.
