Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22nd OF MAY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 41102 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. VINOD YADAV S/O LAXMAN YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE R/O VILLAGE BHAIRKHADI
P.S. MOHANGARH, DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LAXMAN YADAV S/O HINDUPAT
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O
VILLAGE BHAIRKHADI P.S.
MOHANGARH, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. VIDHYA YADAV W/O LAXMAN
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE BHAIRKHADI PS
MOHANGARH, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. RAMDEVI @ GUDIYA YADAV W/O
KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O VILLAGE BHAIRKHADI
PS MOHANGARH, DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI BASANT RAJ PANDEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE POLICE STATION
MOHANGARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. PRAVESH YADAV D/O BRIJLAL
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE SATGUWA LIDHOURA,
2
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI JUBIN PRASAD - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
............................................................................................................................................
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 reliefs:
"In view of the above submissions, the
Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to quash
the impugned FIR vide Crime No.69/2021 in the
P.S. Mohangarh, District Tikarmgarh and criminal
trial instituted on the basis of said FIR vide crime
no.69/2021 for it being admitted abuse of process of
law, in the interest of justice."
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that applicant No.1 is the
husband, applicants No.2 and 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law and
applicant No.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2. It is submitted by
counsel for applicants that applicant No.1 as well as respondent No.2
were living in live-in-relationship. It is submitted that applicant No.1
had physical relationship with respondent No.2 on the pretext of
marriage but thereafter, he refused to marry her and accordingly, an FIR
for offence under Sections 376, 496, 506 Part-II of IPC and under
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. It is submitted that
applicants No.1 to 3 were made accused in the said offence. The First
Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, District Tikamgarh by judgment
dated 09.05.2018 acquitted the applicants for the reason that
prosecutrix/respondent No.2 had turned hostile. It is submitted by
counsel for applicants that since the prosecutrix had not narrated the
truth before the trial Court, therefore, she was prosecuted and has been
convicted. It is further submitted that after the registration of Crime
No.12/2017 under Sections 376, 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, applicant No.1 was forced to perform marriage
with respondent No.2 but it was a marriage under compulsion. It is
submitted that thereafter, respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR alleging
that after the matter was compromised in view of the marriage,
applicants No.1 to 3 were acquitted. However, after the acquittal,
applicants refused to keep the respondent No.2 with them and applicant
No.1 had also filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act,
which was registered as case No.5/2019 and the same has been
dismissed by order dated 22.01.2020. Respondent No.2 had also filed an
application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was
registered as case No.16/2019 and by order dated 22.01.2020, her
application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and
applicant No.1 was directed to keep the respondent No.2. It was also
alleged that immediately after the marriage, the applicants started
harassing her and were alleging that marriage was performed for the bail
of applicant No.1 and now they would not keep her and were
continuously harassing that she should bring an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs.
In spite of decree of restitution of conjugal rights, applicants are not
ready to keep respondent No.2 without taking an amount of Rs.10
Lakhs. For demand of dowry they are pressurizing respondent No.2 and
they were insisting that they would not keep her without an amount of
Rs.10 Lakhs. Applicants No.2 and 3 are claiming that since their son is
serving in Army, therefore, they would marry him to another girl and
would take an amount of Rs.10 Lakh and in case, if respondent No.2
wants to stay with applicants, then she should bring an amount of Rs.10
Lakhs. It was further alleged that respondent No.2 is residing in her
parental house since 2018. Respondent No.2 had also made a complaint
to the Authority at the place where applicant No.1 is posted but in spite
of that applicants are not ready to keep her with them.
3. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, it is submitted
by counsel for applicants that allegation against the applicants are
vague, general and omnibus in nature. It is well established principle of
law that near and dear relatives of husband of complainant/wife should
not be compelled to face the ordeal of trial unless and until the
allegations are specific. It is further submitted that if respondent No.2
was living in live-in-relationship with applicant No.1 out of her own
volition, then she cannot make a complaint that she was subjected to
rape.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The admitted facts are that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2
were having physical relationship. It is the case of respondent No.2 that
applicant No.1 had developed the physical relationship on the pretext of
marriage. It is also undisputed that respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR
for offence under Section 376 of IPC and other offences on the ground
that applicant No.1 has sexually exploited her on the pretext of
marriage. It is also undisputed fact that applicant No.1 was arrested in
the said offence and on the undertaking given by applicant No.1 that he
would marry respondent No.2, he was granted bail. It is also an admitted
fact that thereafter, applicant No.1 married the respondent No.2. It is
also an admitted fact that thereafter, respondent No.2 turned hostile in
the trial and ultimately, applicants No.1 to 3 were acquitted for all the
charges. It is the case of applicants that since respondent No.2 had
turned hostile, therefore, she was prosecuted and has been convicted and
is on bail. If the allegations made in the FIR are considered in the light
of the aforesaid admitted facts, then it is clear that respondent No.2 has
specifically alleged that all the four applicants started harassing her on
the pretext that marriage was performed under compulsion to obtain a
bail order for the applicant No.1. Even during the course of arguments,
it was submitted by counsel for applicants that marriage of applicant
No.1 with respondent No.2 was under compulsion and it was not out of
his free will or own volition. Thus, allegations made by respondent No.2
that applicants started demanding Rs.10 Lakhs cannot be said to be self
imaginary allegations because even according to applicants, marriage of
applicant No.1 with respondent No.2 was performed because applicants
wanted to obtain a bail order. It is really sorry to note that although
respondent No.2 kept her promise and since the marriage was
performed, therefore she turned hostile but applicants are still taking
advantage of their own misdeeds. Once the matter was compromised on
account of marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 and
respondent No.2 decided not to allege against applicants, then applicants
instead of feeling obliged started alleging against respondent No.2. Even
the application filed by applicant No.1 for grant of divorce was
dismissed. The harassment on respondent No.2 on account of demand of
dowry and on account of marriage under compulsion clearly makes out
an offence warranting their prosecution for offence under Section 498-A
of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations
are specific, clear and borne out from the arguments made by counsel
for applicants also.
6. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
7. Application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
SR*
Date: 2024.05.24 15:19:58 +05'30'
