Madhya Pradesh High Court
Varun Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
REPORTABLE
1
MCRC-55577-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2025
M.Cr.C. No.55577 of 2024
VARUN TIWARI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
................................................................................................................................................
Appearance :
Shri Sankalp Kochar, Shri Rajeev Upadhyay and Shri Poonam Chandra Soni -
Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Abhishek Dilraj - Advocate for respondent No.2.
................................................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 03.04.2025
Pronounced on : 24.04.2025
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is
finally heard.
2. This petition has been filed invoking the inherent powers provided
to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for
quashing of FIR and also the charge-sheet filed by the
respondent/prosecution on an offence registered vide Crime No.29/2024
on 16.08.2024 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Satna, under
Sections 498-A and 294 of the Indian Penla Code.
MCRC-55577-2024
3. The facts leading to the present petition lie in a narrow
compass are that;
(3.1) The petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into marriage on
22.05.2013 which was solemnized as per Hindu Rities. The
petitioner is a police officer and after marriage, respondent
No.2 was residing with the petitioner.
(3.2) On 27.01.2024, a complaint was made by respondent No.2
to the SHO, Mahila Thana Satna, District Satna, alleging
therein that she entered into marriage with the present
petitioner in the year 2013 and out of the said wedlock, she
has given birth to a child, who on the date of complaint was
about 9 years old. She has also stated that till 2-3 years of
marriage, the attitude of the petitioner towards respondent
No.2 was normal but after delivering the child, his attitude
got changed and he refused to keep respondent No.2 with
him. The petitioner had left respondent No.2 to her in-laws
house at Khargone whereas he started living at his place of
posting i.e. at Bhind where he was living alone and
whenever he used to come to meet his mother, then he and
his mother, both used to abuse respondent No.2 and also to
her parents saying that adequate dowry was not given as per
their status and they used to mentally harass respondent
No.2. The allegations of physical assault was also levelled in
the said complaint. They also threatened her that they were
thinking of his second marriage and harassment was being
done with an intention to provoke her to commit suicide.
MCRC-55577-2024
(3.3) As per the complaint, the situation became unbearable and
therefore, respondent No.2 called her father and then on
23.01.2024, the petitioner and his mother created such a
scene and abused respondent No.2 and her father so badly
then they called the police and with the help of police
somehow they managed to escape from the scene and
reached a hotel.
(3.4) It is mentioned that at Khargone the report could not be
made to the police under the fear and threat of the petitioner
and it is requested that appropriate proceeding be initiated
against the petitioner.
(3.5) Another complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police
on 29.01.2024 reiterating the same facts then FIR was
registered on 16.08.2024 vide Crime No.29/2024 and
offence got registered under Section 498-A and 294 of IPC.
(3.6) As per the contents of FIR, the petitioner immediately after
marriage used to mentally and physically harass respondent
No.2 and she used to live with her husband wherever he was
posted.
(3.7) In the year 2014, she had delivered a child namely Aryan
Tiwari and thereafter, in the year 2017, the petitioner was
transferred to Balaghat.
(3.8) It is also mentioned in the complaint that the father-in-law
used to try reconcile with the petitioner but the relationship
between the petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife
MCRC-55577-2024
became more and more bitter day by day.
(3.9) In the year 2019, the petitioner got transferred to Khargone
and since the petitioner was harassing respondent No.2 very
badly, therefore, she called her father and informed the
Superintendent of Police, Bhind and Police Station Kotwali
about her plight and thereafter with her father, she came
back to her parental home. The attitude of the petitioner was
incordial and according to the contents of FIR, he was
making allegations against the character of respondent No.2.
He was not willing to keep her with him at any cost. Many
people tried to resolve the dispute but ultimately they all
failed.
(3.10) On 17.01.2024, the petitioner assaulted respondent No.2,
then she called her father and came back to her parental
home and started living there in Satna. Even while residing
at Satna, she tried her best to resolve the dispute but nothing
positive happened. An approach to the Parivar Paramarsh
Kendra was made and the petitioner came over there and
everybody tried to make him understand but all in vain. He
was not willing to keep respondent No.2 and the child with
him and then, FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 as she
was left with no other option.
(3.11) In the backdrop of aforesaid factual matrix, petitioner is
before this Court asking for quashing of FIR registered
against him.
4. Shri Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
MCRC-55577-2024
from the contents of FIR, it can be seen that only omnibus allegations
are made in it and even there was no demand of dowry. He has
submitted that respondent No.2 had left the house of petitioner/husband
on 17.01.2024 but the complaint was made on 16.08.2024 after almost
seven months. He has submitted that the petitioner has filed an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for
reconciliation of marriage which is available on record filed in the
month of March, 2024 before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge,
Khargone. Shri Kochar, although, has submitted that the present FIR is
nothing but an afterthought and is an offshoot of Section 9 proceeding
initiated by the petitioner/husband. According to him, a notice to that
application was issued on 01.03.2024 and on 31.03.2024, the counsel
appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. The petitioner/husband has also
made several applications to the authority saying that a false complaint
made against him whereas in Section 9 proceeding, nothing adverse
happened between the parties that could create an unpleasant situation.
He has further submitted that the statement of respondent No.2 was also
recorded on 17.08.2024, in which also there was no specific allegation
of demand of dowry and it is nothing but a reiteration of facts mentioned
in the FIR. However, in the statement of father of respondent No.2,
namely, Kailash Kumar Pandey, there is no allegation of demand of
dowry but the only allegation with regard to harassment saying incordial
relation between the husband and wife is there. The statement of
Rambahor Gupta, has also been recorded, in which he has stated before
the police that the father of respondent No.2 informed that respondent
No.2 has come to him and started residing alone because the
relationship between the petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife
was not cordial and they used to quarrel very often. As such, there is
MCRC-55577-2024
nothing specific about any demand of dowry. In the statement of
witnesses i.e. child Aryan Tiwari has also been taken and he has also
stated that 'Mummy-Papa' used to fight with each other very often. The
statement of brother of respondent No.2 namely Pratiraj Pandey has also
been recorded and he has also reiterated almost the same facts about
fight between the husband and wife and mental and physical harassment
by the present petitioner.
5. Respondent No.2 has also produced an application under Section
125 of the CrPC along with his son before the Family Court Satna
claiming maintenance in which also she has made allegation that the
petitioner used to abuse her and also to torture her physically and
mentally but Shri Kochar has submitted that even in a complaint made
to the police authorities and also in the application filed under Section
125 of CrPC, the allegations are very general in nature, nothing specific
even not indicating the date of incident. He has submitted that there was
no allegation about demand of dowry. He has submitted that in view law
laid down by the Supreme Court and also by this Court that now it has
become a practice to make omnibus allegation for registering the
offence under Section 498-A and this is not proper and this practice has
been deprecated directing the authorities to be cautious about that and be
careful while registering such an offence. He has submitted that in the
existing circumstances and considering the over all material, the case of
498-A is not made out and the offence of Section 294 of the IPC can be
quashed on the ground that there is delay in lodging the FIR and
allegations are omnibus. The present petitioner is a government
employee and if offence is registered and tried, a great prejudice would
cause to him.
MCRC-55577-2024
6. Shri Abhishek Dilraj, learned counsel appeared for respondent
No.2 and filed the reply along with several documents and submitted
that the present FIR is not an offshoot of Section 9 proceeding submitted
by the husband. According to him, Section 9 application in an offshoot
of application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 125 of the CrPC
so as to avoid maintenance on the ground that the petitioner wanted to
keep respondent No.2 with him but she without any cause residing
separately. Shri Dilraj has submitted that in a complaint made to the
police on 27.01.2024, there is an allegation that the harassment was
being done by the petitioner and his mother because they were not
satisfied with the dowry given. He has submitted that at this stage, it is
difficult to determine whether the allegations made in the complaint are
correct or not and a mini trial cannot be conducted at this stage. He has
placed reliance upon several judgments reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481
(K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India and others), 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2621 (Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and Others Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another) and also upon the judgment
passed in SLP (Crl.) No.9243 of 2024 (Aluri Venkata Ramana Vs.
Aluri Thirupathi Rao & Ors.).
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, this court is of the opinion that in the
FIR undisputably there was no specific allegation in respect of demand
of dowry. Although, it is clear that the relationship between the husband
and wife was not cordial and often there used to be quarrel between
them and allegation has been made in respect of mental and physical
harassment done by the complainant. Respondent No.2 left the house on
17.01.2024 but the FIR made on 16.08.2024. Although, there are
MCRC-55577-2024
complaints filed by respondent No.2 showing that the police authorities
have also been intimated but those reports also did not contain any
specific allegation with regard to demand of dowry and specific date of
incident. Although, in one of the complaints i.e. Annexure-R/3 dated
27.01.2024, the following allegations have been made:-
"......ngst de nsus dh ckr djuk rFkk eq>s vius LVsVzl ds eqrkfcd u dgdj
ekufld :i ls izrkfM+r djuk--------"
This is the sole allegation, but it cannot be said that there was any
demand of dowry.
8. At this stage, it is relevant to see the provisions of Section 498-A
of IPC, which prescribes as under:-
"Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
criminalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives
against a married woman. It's a crucial law protecting
women from marital abuse, including physical, mental,
and emotional harm, and harassment related to dowry
demands. The punishment for violating this section is
imprisonment for up to three years and a fine."
In view of the aforesaid requirements and the allegations made
which are available on record, this court is of the opinion that the
sufficient material and ingredients are not available so as to constitute
the offence of Section 498-A of the IPC.
9. Likewise, the offence of Section 294 of the IPC which prescribes
as under:-
"Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses
obscene acts and songs performed in public, causing
annoyance or objection to others. It punishes
individuals who do any obscene act to the annoyance
of others in a public place, or who sing, recite, or utter
any obscene song, ballad, or words in or near a public
MCRC-55577-2024
place."
10. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the allegations available on
record are not sufficient to constitute the offence under Sections 498-A
and 294 of the IPC.
11. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a case of
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel (supra), in which the Supreme Court
dealing with the power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. asking for
quashing of FIR has laid down the importance of specific allegation so
as to register the FIR but not on the basis of omnibus allegations. The
observation made in the said case is as under:-
"10. We will now examine the 'specific allegations'
in the FIR/complaint. Firstly, the complainant referred
to certain items which are said to have been given by
her father at the time of marriage. These items are (i)
one Scorpio car; (ii) T.V.; (iii) fridge; (iv) DVD Tape;
(v) silver utensils; (vi) 100 to 150 tolas gold; (vii) and
Rs. 5 lacs. This allegation relates to the year 2002 and
the present complaint is of the year 2013. It is
important to mention at this very stage that identical
allegations in a DV case filed by the complainant were
taken up at trial and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class
had disbelieved the complainant's version. We will be
dealing with the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate,
First Class in little more detail in the succeeding paras
of the judgment. The second allegation relates to a
bare statement that there exists a joint locker and that
the keys of the said locker are with her stepmother-in-
law, that is the appellant no. 1. Even on this, the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class has observed that there
are no details whatsoever, about the bank or the locker.
10.1 The tendency to make general, vague, and
omnibus allegation is noticed by this Court in many
decisions. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B.
2023 SS OnLine SC 90, this court observed that:
"16... the respondent alleged commission
of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423,
MCRC-55577-2024
467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the
appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation
and the ingredients to attract them, as adverted
to hereinbefore would reveal that the
allegations are vague and they did not carry the
essential ingredients to constitute the alleged
offences.... The ingredients to attract the
alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and the
nature of the allegations contained in the
application filed by the respondent would
undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent
had failed to make specific allegation against
the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid
offences. The factual position thus would reveal
that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal
proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid
incident and further that the dispute involved is
essentially of civil nature. The appellants and
the respondents have given a cloak of criminal
offence in the issue ..."
10.2 Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in
particulars and details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti
(2009) 10 SCC 184, this court observed that:
"7. ...what strikes us is that there are no
particulars given as to the date on which the
ornaments were handed over, as to the exact
number of ornaments or their description and
as to the date when the ornaments were asked
back and were refused. Even the weight of the
ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint
and it is a general and vague complaint that
the ornaments were sometime given in the
custody of the appellants and they were not
returned. What strikes us more is that even in
Para 10 of the complaint where the
complainant says that she asked for her
clothes and ornaments which were given to
the accused and they refused to give these
back, the date is significantly absent."
11. The third allegation is against appellant no. 1,
the mother-inlaw, who is said to have threatened the
complainant when she gave birth to a girl child. The
threat is that the complainant will not get her gold and
silver ornaments, and her husband will not get any
MCRC-55577-2024
share in the property. The allegations are again vague,
lacking in basic details. The essence of the complaint
is in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any
share in the property with respect to which the
husband has already filed the suit for declaration.
12. The complaint also refers to a small incident
where the complainant's brother accompanied her to
the matrimonial house, when the appellants no. 1 and 3
are alleged to have refused to take her back but on
persuasion by her brother, she was allowed to stay.
There is also a vague allegation that, when the
complainant gave birth to a second child, appellants 1
and 2 came and "quarrelled" with the complainant, her
brother, parents and threatened them. This Court had
occasion to examine the phenomenon of general and
omnibus allegations in the cases of matrimonial
disputes. In Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P.
2024 SSC OnLine SC 127, this Court observed that:
"14. ...A bare perusal of the complaint,
statement of witnesses' and the charge-sheet
shows that the allegations against the
Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in
nature; even if they are taken in their entirety,
they do not prima facie make out a case
against the Appellants. The material on record
neither discloses any particulars of the
offences alleged nor discloses the specific
role/allegations assigned to any of the
Appellants in the commission of the offences.
15. The phenomenon of false implication
by way of general omnibus allegations in the
course of matrimonial disputes is not
unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar
alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, this Court dealt
with a similar case wherein the allegations
made by the complainant-wife against her in-
laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and
general, lacking any specific role and
particulars. The court proceeded to quash the
FIR against the accused persons and noted
that such a situation, if left unchecked, would
result in the abuse of the process of law."
13. There is also an allegation against the appellant
no. 2 about which the complainant passingly
MCRC-55577-2024
mentioned that "my daughter's education disturbed
since my brother-in-law Rahul cancelled her school
admission by signing fraudulently". The complaint is
again silent about when such an act was done, where
was it done, which was the school in which the
admission was cancelled, what documents were signed
for such cancellation, and what is fraud played by him.
It is impossible to conceive of any offence on the basis
of such vague and unclear allegations. Lastly, there is
an allegation against the appellant no. 4, the Munim
against whom it is said "Vijay Ranchhodbhai Patel is
telling stories to my in-laws against me, my husband
and my children and making them to mentally torture
us". The Munim is said to have threatened them and
ask them to go away as there is nothing left for them as
the entire property belongs to Rahul, appellant no. 2.
13.1 In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar7 this
Court noticed the injustice that may be caused when
parties are forced to go through tribulations of a trial
based on general and omnibus allegations. The
relevant portion of the observation is as under:
"11. ...in recent times, matrimonial litigation
in the country has also increased significantly
and there is a greater disaffection and friction
surrounding the institution of marriage, now,
more than ever. This has resulted in an
increased tendency to employ provisions such
as Section 498-A IPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his
relatives.
18. ... upon a perusal of the contents of the
FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that
general allegations are levelled against the
appellants. The complainant alleged that "all
accused harassed her mentally and threatened
her of terminating her pregnancy".
Furthermore, no specific and distinct
allegations have been made against either of
the appellants herein i.e. none of the
appellants have been attributed any specific
role in furtherance of the general allegations
made against them. This simply leads to a
situation wherein one fails to ascertain the
role played by each accused in furtherance of
MCRC-55577-2024
the offence. The allegations are, therefore,
general and omnibus and can at best be said
to have been made out on account of small
skirmishes... However, as far as the
appellants are concerned, the allegations
made against them being general and
omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
21. ...it would be unjust if the appellants are
forced to go through the tribulations of a trial
i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot
manifest in a situation where the relatives of
the complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this
Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial
leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts
severe scars upon the accused, and such an
exercise must, therefore, be discouraged."
14. One important event that gives us a clear
impression that the criminal proceedings were
instituted with a mala fide intention, only to harass the
appellants, is the filing of the Domestic Violence case.
After the institution of the Civil Case on 27.02.2013
and thereafter the present Criminal Complaint/FIR,
respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 12 of
the Domestic Violence Act on 06.04.2013, based on
similar allegations. The DV complaint refers to the
same items, a Scorpio car, T.V., fridge, DVD Tape,
silver articles, 100 to 150 tolas gold and cash of Rs. 5
lacs as dowry. Again, there is an allegation that the
accused have threatened that she will not get a share in
the property as she gave birth to a girl child. There are
similar allegations against appellant no. 2 as well as
the Munim, the appellant no. 4. The domestic violence
complaint went to trial and culminated in a detailed
judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna
dated 16.01.2019. We are informed that the judgment
and order has become final as there was no appeal
against the said order. While dismissing the domestic
violence complaint, the learned judge observed as
under:
"19. During cross examination, the applicant
admitted that the property dispute is going on
in between her and respondents. Again, she
voluntarily stated that the property dispute is
MCRC-55577-2024
pending in between her husband and parents
in law. Moreover, the applicant appears
deposed specifically that where ever Joint
Bank Accounts are in the name of
respondents, her and her husband, in such
cases, respondents shall be prohibited from
operation said accounts and she shall be
allowed to operate. It further appears that the
applicant family shall be provided same level
of accommodation as holding by respondents.
20. The above ocular evidence and admission
are clearly suggesting that the applicant has
brought the present application at the behest
of her husband and with ulterior motive to
grab property which the husband of the
applicant may be entitled by other provisions
of law. The wordings used in the application
reveal selfish nature of the applicant. Hence,
in the given circumstances, I am of opinion
that it would be unsafe to rely on the sole
testimony of the applicant without
corroboration.
21. It seems that the applicant has not brought
any other cogent and reliable evidence in
support of her said oral evidence. Moreover, it
appears that the case filed
u/s 498(A) of IPC bearing RCC No. 376/2014
is not yet concluded. There is no record
showing that respondents have been held
guilty till today in that matter. It means that
said allegations are not yet proved and not
available for corroboration purpose.
Therefore, I am coming to the conclusion that
there is no cogent and reliable evidence as to
domestic violence and accordingly I record
my finding to Point No. 1 as "No"." "
12. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment reported in 2024
SCC OnLine 759 (Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Another)
in which the Supreme Court has analysed the factual aspect of the
matter and observed as under:-
MCRC-55577-2024
"15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and having gone through the materials
on record, the only question that falls for our
consideration is whether the criminal proceedings
should be quashed?
16. The Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 got
married in October 2008. The couple lived together for
more than a decade and in the wedlock a child was
born in March 2012.
17. We take notice of the fact that the Appellant
filed a divorce petition in July 2019 on the ground of
cruelty. The divorce petition was withdrawn as the
Appellant was finding it difficult to take care of his
child, while travelling all the way to Hisar on the dates
fixed by the Court. The Appellant's mother had to file
a domestic violence case against the First Informant in
October 2020 under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
18. The plain reading of the FIR and the
chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations
levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general
and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal
conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no
specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences
has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop
the proceedings against the other members of the
Appellant's family. Thus, we are of the view that the
FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a
counterblast to the divorce petition & also the
domestic violence case.
19. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent
No. 2 lodged the FIR on 09.04.2021, i.e., nearly 2
years after the filing of the divorce petition by the
Appellant and 6 months after the filing of the
domestic violence case by her mother-in-law. Thus, the
First Informant remained silent for nearly 2 years after
the divorce petition was filed. With such an
unexplained delay in filing the FIR, we find that the
same was filed only to harass the Appellant and his
family members.
x x x
MCRC-55577-2024
25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on
some general and sweeping allegations without
bringing on record any specific instances of criminal
conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the
court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations
levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find
out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in
the allegations or whether they are made only with the
sole object of involving certain individuals in a
criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution
arises from a matrimonial dispute.
26. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, reported
in 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303 (1), this Court
observed the following:--
"28. It is a matter of common knowledge
that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is
rapidly increasing in our country. All the
courts in our country including this court are
flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly
demonstrates discontent and unrest in the
family life of a large number of people of the
society.
29. The courts are receiving a large
number of cases emanating from section 498-
A of the Penal Code, 1860 which reads as
under:
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband
of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of
the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section,
'cruelty' means:
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or
MCRC-55577-2024
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such
demand."
30. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under section
498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment
over trivial issues without proper
deliberations. We come across a large number
of such complaints which are not even bona
fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the
same time, rapid increase in the number of
genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a
matter of serious concern.
31. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation
to ensure that the social fiber of family life is
not ruined or demolished. They must ensure
that exaggerated versions of small incidents
should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are
filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned members of the Bar
who belong to a noble profession must
maintain its noble traditions and should treat
every complaint under section 498-A as a
basic human problem and must make serious
endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an
amicable resolution of that human problem.
They must discharge their duties to the best of
their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace
and tranquility of the society remains intact.
The members of the Bar should also ensure
that one complaint should not lead to multiple
cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of
the complaint the implications and
consequences are not properly visualized by
the complainant that such complaint can lead
to insurmountable harassment, agony and
pain to the complainant, accused and his
MCRC-55577-2024
close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find
out the truth and punish the guilty and protect
the innocent To find out the truth is a
herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating
husband and all his immediate relations is
also not uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic
realities into consideration while dealing with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband's close relations who
had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely
different complexion. The allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection. Experience
reveals that long and protracted criminal
trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness
in the relationship amongst the parties. It is
also a matter of common knowledge that in
cases filed by the complainant if the husband
or the husband's relations had to remain in
jail even for a few days, it would ruin the
chances of amicable settlement altogether.
The process of suffering is extremely long and
painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we
would like to observe that a serious relook of
the entire provision is warranted by the
legislation. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
incident are reflected in a large number of
complaints. The tendency of over implication
is also reflected in a very large number of
cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense
sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate
acquittal in the trial may also not be able to
wipe out the deep scars of suffering of
MCRC-55577-2024
ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of
these complaints have not only flooded the
courts but also have led to enormous social
unrest affecting peace, harmony and
happiness of the society. It is high time that
the legislature must take into consideration
the pragmatic realities and make suitable
changes in the existing law. It is imperative
for the legislature to take into consideration
the informed public opinion and the
pragmatic realities in consideration and make
necessary changes in the relevant provisions
of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy
of this judgment to the Law Commission and
to the Union Law Secretary, Government of
India who may place it before the Hon'ble
Minister for Law and Justice to take
appropriate steps in the larger interest of the
society."
x x x
29. The learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 2 as well as the learned counsel
appearing for the State submitted that the High Court
was justified in not embarking upon an enquiry as
regards the truthfulness or reliability of the allegations
in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C. as once there are allegations disclosing the
commission of a cognizable offence then whether they
are true or false should be left to the trial court to
decide.
30. In the aforesaid context, we should look into the
category 7 as indicated by this Court in the case of
Bhajan Lal (supra). The category 7 as laid reads thus:
--
"(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred
MCRC-55577-2024
to above should be taken into consideration and
applied in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If
the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement
by the complainant of her husband and his close
relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR
and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing
substantial justice should read in between the lines the
oblique motive of the complainant and take a
pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission
canvassed by the counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted
mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment
of the inherent power by the Cr. P.C. upon the High
Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for
the simple reason that if the wife on account of
matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband
and his family members then the first thing, she would
ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in
the First Information Report. Many times the services
of professionals are availed for the same and once the
complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very
difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other
deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean
that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands
in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there
are allegations in the First Information Report and the
chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence. If the allegations alone as levelled,
more particularly in the case like the one on hand, are
to be looked into or considered then why the
investigating agency thought fit to file a closure report
against the other co-accused? There is no answer to
this at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the
State. We say so, because allegations have been
levelled not only against the Appellant herein but even
against his parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then
why the police did not deem fit to file chargesheet
against the other co-accused? It appears that even the
investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was
nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial
dispute.
13. In a recent case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat (SLP (Crl.) No.7957 of 2024), the Supreme Court
MCRC-55577-2024
especially in respect of cases under Section 498-A has dealt with the fact
and observed that it has now become fashion to get the offence of
Section 498-A of IPC registered on the basis of omnibus allegations. In
the said case, the observation made by the Supreme Court reads as
under:-
"10. This Court has also held in the judgment in
the case of State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan
Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582), that not every kind
of harassment would amount to 'cruelty'
within the meaning of the provision, to
constitute the offence punishable therein.
Every case has to be analysed on its
individual facts to assess whether the act of
the accused persons constitutes cruelty.
Further, cruelty can either be mental or
physical, and it is to be seen on the facts of
each case.
11. From the above understanding of the
provision, it is evident that' 'cruelty'
simpliciter is not enough to constitute the
offence, rather it must be done either with the
intention to cause grave injury or to drive her
to commit suicide or with intention to
coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful
demands."
14. This court also in case of Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey
and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Criminal
Revision No.521/2021) dealing with the case of Section 498-A of IPC
has quashed the charge framed against the accused and observed as
under:-
"13. The High Court in number of cases has observed
that in a case where complaint is made by the wife against
the husband and his family members only after filing a
petition for divorce then the same is considered to be a
counter-blast, just to create pressure upon the husband so
that he may withdraw the case relating to decree of divorce.
MCRC-55577-2024
It is also observed by the High Court that if the fact
indicates that the wife has not raised any voice alleging
demand of dowry for long and has also not approached any
authority regarding her grievances, but only after filing a
suit by the husband complaint is made by the wife then the
said complaint is considered to be a counter-blast and
prosecution is considered to be an act apparently to harass
the husband and his family members and such a
complaint/FIR has been quashed.
14. In M.Cr.C. No. 8104/2017 (Tarun and Others
Vs. State of M.P. and another), the High Court,
considering the similar aspect has passed an order quashing
the FIR whereby offence under Sections 498-A, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 were registered. The High Court
relying upon several decisions has observed as under:-
"7. The parameters on which the indulgence can be shown for
exercising powers available under Section 482 of 'the Code' with
respect to matrimonial matters have been laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs State of U.P. (2012) 10
SCC 741 in the following manner :
"20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the
contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that
there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta
Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual
reference of their names who have been included in
the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of
the family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in the
matter would not justify taking cognizance against
them overlooking the fact borne out of experience
that there is a tendency to involve the entire family
members of the household in the domestic quarrel
taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it
happens soon after the wedding.
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: (SCC P.698, para 12).
"12. there has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times.
MCRC-55577-2024
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. 7 Cr.R. No.521/2021 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."
8. In another judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v.
Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310,
wherein the Hon'ble Court referred to the earlier
decision, observed in the following manner :-
"In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors.,
reported in (1988) 1 SCC 692, this Court
observed as follows:-
"7. The legal position is well settled that when a
prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be
quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as
to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made prima facie establish the offence. It is also
for the court to take into consideration any
special features which appear in a particular
case to consider whether it is expedient and in
the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. This is so on the basis that the court
cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and
where in the opinion of the court chances of an
ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no
useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the
court may while taking into consideration the
special facts of a case also quash the proceeding
even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
MCRC-55577-2024
9. In the context of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, the plain reading of the FIR dated 03/03/2017 filed
by the respondent No.2 shows that the allegations relating
to commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A
of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 are vague and bereft of details as to the place and
time of the incident, it also does not refer to any specific
act of the applicants. According to the contents of F.I.R,
the respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty due to non-
fulfillment of demand of Rs.5.00 lakhs as dowry by the
applicants, however, it 8 Cr.R. No.521/2021 is undisputed
that the respondent No.2 is living separately since year
2015 and hence there is no question of any harassment by
the applicants as alleged by her as the relationship having
got a strained, ever since December 2014. It is pertinent
to note that respondent No.2 has also filed complaint
against applicant no.1 in Mahila Thana, Bhopal and after
conciliation, she agreed to seek divorce from applicant
No.1, therefore, it is difficult to believe that there is still a
demand of dowry on 03/03/2017 coupled with the
criminal intimidation.
10. The applicant No.1 filed a suit of divorce against
respondent No.2/complainant in Family Court, Dhar
in which an exparte divorce decree has been passed
vide order dated 21/03/2017. After receiving the
notice of the aforesaid suit respondent No.2 has filed
an application under Section 12 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against
applicant No.1 on 03/03/2017 and on the same day,
she also lodged F.I.R for offence punishable under
Section 498A, 506 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the applicant
at police station Kotwali, District Dhar, which
clearly indicates that as a counter blast of divorce
petition filed by the applicant No.1 against
respondent No.2, she has lodged the aforesaid F.I.R
against the applicants.
11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would
be evident that veiled object behind the lame
prosecution is apparently to harass the appellants,
therefore, to secure the ends of justice and for
preventing abuse of the process of criminal Court, it
is a fit case in which the inherent powers of this
Court under Section 482 of 'the Code' may be
exercised.
12. Consequently, the application filed by the
applicants, under Section 482 of 'the Code' is hereby
allowed and the First Information Report bearing
crime No.116/2017, registered at Police Station-
Kotwali, Dhar, against the applicants for offences
under Section 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 as also the chargesheet and all the
MCRC-55577-2024
consequential proceedings flowing out of the said
F.I.R stands quashed."
15. Further, in case of Rohit Vs. State of M.P.
reported in 2019 (III) MPWN 25, considering the
similar facts as has been involved in the present case,
the High Court has observed as under:-
"9. Cr.R. No.521/2021 "9. The first contention
which appears to be preliminary in nature is that
the documents which are brought on record
regarding the complaint made by the applicant
No. 1 to the Superintdent of Police, Ratlam and
filing of application under Section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal
rights are the defence documents and there is
prohibition in considering such documents in
order to decide the application of the instant
nature. This contention can be best answered by
relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya
Satardekar, (2008) 14 SCC 1, has held as under:
"21. We should also keep in mind that it is
well settled that a judgment of the Court has
not to be treated as Euclid's formula [vide
Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi
Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2
SCC (L&S) 887 : JT (2008) 8 SC 621] ]. As
observed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC
579 : AIR 2004 SC 4778, observations of
courts are neither to be read as Euclid's
formula nor as provisions of the statute.
22. Thus, in our opinion, while it is true that
ordinarily defence material cannot be looked
into by the court while framing of the charge
in view of D.N. Padhi case [(2005) 1 SCC
568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415] , there may be
some very rare and exceptional cases where
some defence material when shown to the
trial court would convincingly demonstrate
that the prosecution version is totally absurd
or preposterous, and in such very rare cases
the defence material can be looked into by
the court at the time of framing of the charges
or taking cognizance. In our opinion,
therefore, it cannot be said as an absolute
proposition that under no circumstances can
the court look into the material produced by
the defence at the time of framing of the
charges, though this should be done in very
rare cases i.e. where the defence produces
some material which convincingly
demonstrates that the whole prosecution case
is totally absurd or totally concocted.
MCRC-55577-2024
38. In my view, therefore, there is no scope
for the accused to produce any evidence in
support of the submissions made on his
behalf at the stage of framing of charge and
only such materials as are indicated in
Section 227 CrPC can be taken into
consideration by the learned Magistrate at
that stage. However, in a proceeding taken
therefrom under Section 482 CrPC the court
is free to consider material that may be
produced on behalf of the accused to 10 Cr.R.
No.521/2021 arrive at a decision whether the
charge as framed could be maintained. This,
in my view, appears to be the intention of the
legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228
the way in which they have been worded and
as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case
(2005) 1 SCC 568 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 415 by
the larger Bench therein to which the very
same question had been referred."
10. The reproduced extracts of the said judgment
clearly demonstrate that there is no prohibition in
considering even the defence material while
exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC.
Consequently, the first contention of the
respondent about nonconsideration of the defence
material is repealed.
11. The next contention which touches on the
merits of the case is that the Court cannot consider
the background or the circumstances under which
the complaint has been lodged as it is only
required to pursue the contents of the complaint
lodged by the respondent No.2 and the statements
recorded by the police under Section 161 of CrPC
and if these materials make out the ingredient of
offence charged against the applicants, there is no
scope for showing any indulgence. In this context
of said contention, it will be worthwhile to quote
the following observation made by the Supreme
Court in the case of Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi
Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310:-
"15. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] ,
this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 695, para
7)
"7. The legal position is well settled that when
a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be
quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as
to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made prima facie establish the offence. It is also
for the court to take into consideration any
MCRC-55577-2024
special features which appear in a particular
case to consider whether it is expedient and in
the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. This is so on the basis that the court
cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and
where in the opinion of the court chances of an
ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no
useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the
court may while taking into consideration the
special facts of a case also quash the proceeding
even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
12. The consideration of the reproduced portion
clearly indicates that it is open to the Court to
enquire into the circumstances and the context in
which the complaint has been lodged because it is
not expedient in the interest of justice to permit
the prosecution to continue when the same has
been filed with oblique motive or to settle the
personal score.
13. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that
there is no specific averments regarding the date
or the occasion or any specific wording that they
made for demanding dowry. The marriage was
taken place only one and half year before the
complaint. Earlier no complaint was made to any
authority regarding demand of dowry and
harasment. According to the allegation made in the
complaint that on 29.08.2017 in presence of the
father and maternal uncle of the respondent No.2,
the applicants made demand of dowry and thrown
out her from the matrimonial house but
complainant did not lodged any compliant
immediately after the said incident to the police.
The present complaint has been made after near
about 3 months of the last incident and no
explanation has been disclosed about the delay in
lodging the FIR. These circumstance prima facie
raised doubt about the probability of truthfullness
of the allegations made by the respondent No.2
against the applicants.
14. From the documents filed by the applicants, it
reveals that applicant No. 1 has given notice to the
respondent No.2 on 20.11.2017 regarding
restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter the
respondent No.2 lodged FIR against the applicants
at Police StationMahila Thana on 26.11.2017,
which indicates that the respondent No.2 lodged
the FIR against the applicants for demand of
dowry and harassment to defeat the proceedings
initiated by the applicant No.1 for restitution of
conjugal rights.
MCRC-55577-2024
15. From the reasons stated hereinabove, this court
is of the view that there are no sufficient material
on record to form an opinion that there is ground
for presuming that the appellants/accused persons
have committed the offence under the charged
sections. The learned Judicial Magistrate and the
learned Sessions Judge missed these crucial points
while framing the charge and considering the
revision application filed by the applicants under
Section 397 of Cr.P.C. the veiled object behind the
lame prosecution is apparently to harass the
applicants, therefore, the impugned prosecution is
wholly unfounded.
16. Therefore, present petitions under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed and the proceedings
drawn against the applicants in furtherance to the
FIR bearing crime No.18/2017 for the commission
of offence punishable under Section 498-A,
323/34 of I.P.C. registered at police Station-
Mahila Thana, Ratlam and the consequential
proceedings pending before the court of Judicial
Magistrate First, Class, Ratlam in criminal case
No.2215/2017 are hereby quashed."
16. Further, in case of Sanjay Sthapak & 4 others Vs.
State of M.P. and another passed in M.Cr.C. No.
10044/2010, the High Court has also dealt with a
situation as is involved in the present case and also
analysed the misuse of provisions of Section 498-A of
IPC and also discussed the factual aspect that the
complaint is made by the wife only after filing of suit
by the husband for seeking decree of divorce and there
is no corroborative material available then it is
considered that the action by the wife is nothing but a
counter-blast and as such, allegations made in the FIR
are found absurd and improbable and also quashed the
FIR. The High Court in the said case has observed as
under:-
"5. Having considered the contentions of learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is
found that in the FIR there is no specific allegation
with regard to the demand of the dowry and
harassment and only omnibus statement have been
made against all accused persons and when the
matter was placed before the District Level Pariwar
Paramarsh Kendra, Khandwa the statements of
respondent no.2, and her brother Akash and mother
Smt. Lata were recorded on 28th September, 2018 in
which there is no whisper of demand of dowry and
harassment on account of non fullfilment of the
aforesaid demand and the dispute was related to
MCRC-55577-2024
nonadjustment or non-cooperative attitude of the
respondent no.2, which is not unusual. It also
appears that on behalf of the applicant no.1 divorce
petition was filed before the Family Court, Khandwa
on 19/09/2018 and notice was served before 25th
October, 2018 and thereafter on 28/10/2018, the FIR
was lodged, this fact reflects that it is counter blast
of the action taken by the applicant no.1. Apart from
it, the allegation in the FIR are so absurd and
inherently improbable, on the basis of which no
prudent man can ever reach to the just conclusion
that there is just reasonable ground for proceeding
further against the applicants.
6. There is no dispute about the legal preposition
that the truthfulness of the facts mentioned in the
FIR and the charge sheet can't be adjudicated at this
stage but if the avernment is omnibus and not
sufficient and not probable and do not prima facie
constitute any offence and the proceeding is started
to achieve the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, as counter blast the same can't continue
and this Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C is
duty bound to set aside such proceeding.
7. The Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the
case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of
Uttaranchal (2007)12 SCC 1 has observed in para
24 of the said judgment, which is as under:-
"24. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
though wide have to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and with great caution and only when such
exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in this section itself. Authority of the court
exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of
the process leading to injustice is brought to the
notice of the court, then the Court would be justified
in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers
in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."
8. Now days it is general tendency to implicate in-
laws by the wife in case of demand of dowry just to
take revenge on account of bitterness emerged on
account of nonadjustment in the materimonial
house. The provision of section 498A of the IPC is
not for that purpose. The Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal
Sharma & another vs. Monica [(2009) 10 SCC 604]
in which the Apex Court considering the judgment
of the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs.
Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 281] it is held that :-
"10. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was
introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of
Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal
Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As
MCRC-55577-2024
clearly 14 Cr.R. No.521/2021 stated therein the
increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter
of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been
commented upon by the Joint Committee of the
Houses to examine the work of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the
husband and the relatives of the husband which
culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless
woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction
involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed
to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short 'CrPC') and the Evidence Act
suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of
dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married
women by the husband, in-laws and relatives. The
avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry
death and cruelty.
...............
...............
19. The object of the provision is prevention of the
dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended
by the petitioner many instances have come to light
where the complaints are not bona fide and have
been filed with oblique motive. In such cases
acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe
out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.
Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the
misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial
measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the
wellintentioned provision. Merely because the
provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not
give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreak
personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may,
therefore, become necessary for the legislature to
find out ways how the makers of frivolous
complaints or allegations can be appropriately
dealt with. Till then the courts have to take care of
the situation within the existing framework. As
noted above the object is to strike at the roots of
dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a
new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The
provision is intended to be used as a shield and not
as an assassin's weapon. If the cry of 'wolf' is
made too often as a prank, assistance and
protection may not be available when the actual
'wolf' appears. There is no question of the
investigating agency and courts casually dealing
with the allegations. They cannot follow any
straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry
tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight
of that the ultimate objective of every legal system
is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and
protect the innocent. There is no scope for any
preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously
argued by the petitioner that the investigating
agencies and the courts start with the presumptions
that the accused persons are guilty and that the
MCRC-55577-2024
complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide
and generalised a statement. Certain statutory
presumptions are drawn which again are
rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the
investigating agencies and the courts is that of a
watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be
their effort to see that an innocent person is not
made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless
and malicious allegations. It is equally
undisputable that 15 Cr.R. No.521/2021 in many
cases no direct evidence is available and the courts
have to act on circumstantial evidence. While
dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating
to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
9. The Apex Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of
Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667] held that:-
32. It is a matter of common experience that most
of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues
without proper deliberations. We come across a
large number of such complaints which are not
even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.
At the same time, rapid increase in the number of
genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter
of serious concern.
10. The Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012)10 SCC 741] held
that :-
20. Coming to the facts of this case, when the
contents of the FIR are perused, it is apparent that
there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta
Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual
reference of their names which have been included
in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names
of the family members in a matrimonial dispute
without allegation of active involvement in the
matter would not justify taking cognizance against
them overlooking the fact borne out of experience
that there is a tendency to involve the entire family
members of the household in the domestic quarrel
taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it
happens soon after the wedding.
11. Hon'ble the Apex court in the recent judgment,
Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U.P. And anr.,
passed in criminal appeal no. 1265/2017 dated
27.7.2017 as observed in para 14, as under :-
"14. €Section 498-A was inserted in the statute
with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the
hands of husband or his relatives against a wife
particularly when such cruelty had potential to
result in suicide or murder of a woman as
mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons
of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression "cruelty" in
MCRC-55577-2024
Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the
women to commit suicide or cause grave injury
(mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment
with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful
demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large
number of cases continue to be filed under already
referred to some of the statistics from the Crime
Records Bureau. This 16 Cr.R. No.521/2021 Court
had earlier noticed the fact that most of such
complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not
bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint,
implications and consequences are not visualized.
At times such complaints lead to uncalled for
harassment not only to the accused but also to the
complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the
chances of settlement".
12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of this
Court, the instant petition deserves to be allowed as in
the aforesaid circumstances if the proceedings
continued against the applicants, it would amount to
abuse of the process of the court and would cause
grave injustice to the applicants. In the circumstances,
this petition is allowed and the proceedings of the
Criminal Case No. 389/2018 pending before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Punasa, District
Khandwa is hereby quashed."
17. Considering the law as has been laid down by the
High Court in number of cases, relying upon the view
taken by the Supreme Court, I find substance in the
submission made by learned counsel for the applicants
that in the present case also, the FIR has been lodged by
the non-applicant no.2/wife only to harass the applicant
no.1 and his family members. Her statement filed along
with the charge-sheet clearly reflects that she
approached the police only because applicant no.1 was
going to marry another lady. The allegations made
against the applicants in the report lodged to the police
and the statement given by her were relating to the
incidents that occurred almost two years prior to the date
of FIR. She did not disclose as to why at the relevant
point of time, she did not make any complaint. She has
also not disclosed and not stated when she started living
separately from 2016, she did not lodge any report to the
police but only after coming to know about filing of the
suit and fact of marriage of the non-applicant no.2 with
another lady, the complaint/FIR was lodged to the
police. It can be easily presumed that it is nothing but an
after-thought and the allegations made in the FIR are
improbable and do not 17 Cr.R. No.521/2021 constitute
the offence as alleged against the applicants."
MCRC-55577-2024
15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and making his submission that in
the present case the allegations available on record do not constitute the
offence of Sections 498-A and 294 of the IPC. The allegations are
general in nature. Nothing specific is alleged by the
complaint/respondent No.2 in any of the documents.
16. An application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was
filed by the petitioner and even the application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. was filed but that is also silent in regard any such cruelty
constituting the offence of Section 498-A of IPC. Although, it reflects
that the petitioner/husband was not very cordial with respondent
No.2/wife and her expectation was something else and the treatment
which was being received by her, she was treating herself to be a cruelty
but that does not mean it is an offence as has been observed by the
Supreme Court in case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra).
17. The Supreme Court has clearly observed and even otherwise for
registering an offence or initiating prosecution, there must be some
specific allegation, but only on the basis of general allegations offence
cannot be registered and just to satisfy the ego of a particular person, the
prosecution cannot be launched.
18. Shri Abhishek Dilraj, at the same time, has opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that harassing respondent No.2 continuously, living separately
with her child claiming maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC and not
making specific allegation about demand of dowry does not mean that
the offence of Section 498-A of IPC is not made out. He has submitted
MCRC-55577-2024
that only filing an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act
does not mean that all allegations are false and just to avoid that
situation, since wife is not willing to reside with the husband, the FIR
has been registered. He has submitted that all these facts are to be
determined and can be ascertained during trial and as such, power
provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in this case.
Relying upon the judgment of K.D. Sharma (supra), he has submitted
that in the said case the Supreme Court has observed that a person who
has not approached the court with clean hands is not entitled to get any
relief and equity from the court. The observation made by the Supreme
Court in the said case reads as under:-
"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and
discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are
issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of
utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the
writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all
the facts before the court without concealing or
suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If
there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material
facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court,
his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without
considering the merits of the claim."
19. However, in the opinion of this court, it is not a case in which the
petitioner did not approach this court with clean hands because in the
petition he has not disclosed about the application filed under Section
125 of CrPC but that suppression is not so fatal and has no significance
so that this petition cannot be entertained. The Supreme Court in case
Aluri Venkata Ramana (supra) has observed as to how the offence
under Section 498-A of IPC can be made out, which reads as under:-
MCRC-55577-2024
"17. Therefore, upon careful examination of the
relevant provisions of Section 498A IPC, the
precedents cited, and the factual matrix of the case, it
is apparent that the High Court's decision to quash the
criminal proceedings against Accused Nos.1 and 2 was
flawed. Section 498A IPC recognizes two distinct
forms of cruelty: one involving physical or mental
harm in clause (a) and the other involving harassment
linked to unlawful demands for property or valuable
security in clause (b). These two provisions are to be
read disjunctively, meaning that the presence of a
dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing
cruelty under the Section. The allegation made by the
Appellant, which detail instances of physical abuse
and harassment, fall within the scope of "cruelty" as
defined under clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. The
absence of an explicit dowry demand does not negate
the applicability of the provision where acts of
physical violence and mental distress have been
demonstrated. The core of the offence under Section
498 A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely
revolve around the demand for dowry. Therefore, the
High Court erred in quashing all criminal proceedings
against Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the trial ought to
have been allowed to be carried out."
20. Shri Dilraj has submitted that harassment physical or mental
linked with unlawful demand for property or valuable security and that
dowry demand is not a prerequisite for establishing cruelty under
Section 498-A of IPC. He has submitted that even the offence even in
absence of explicit dowry demand does not negate the applicability of
provisions where acts of physical violence and mental distress have
been demonstrated and allegation about cruelty does not require to
revolve around the demand of dowry and therefore, Shri Dilraj has
submitted that though there is no specific allegation in regard to demand
of dowry but at the same time, the allegation of cruelty has been
consistently maintained by respondent No.2, therefore, it is not a case in
MCRC-55577-2024
which FIR registered under Section 498-A of IPC can be quashed.
21. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of
the observation made by the Supreme Court, though there are some
allegations made by the wife about mental and physical harassment
without any specific dates of incidents, but she did not disclose that any
specific demand of dowry was made. It is also not a case in which
immediately after leaving the house of the husband, she made a
complaint to the police rather the FIR got registered after almost 7-8
months. When application of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was
filed, proceeding of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was pending, then making a
complaint for registration of offence under Section 498-A and 294 of
IPC appears to be improper on the part of the wife. Each and every
quarrel between the husband and wife does not amount to cruelty so as
to constitute the offence of 498-A of IPC. The provision very clearly
provides as to when cruelty would be defined and sufficient to form the
offence of 498-A of IPC but there is no material available with the
police to constitute the offence of 498-A of IPC. Incordial relations
between the husband and wife, quarrel between them are not sufficient
to constitute the offence. If on the basis of general and omnibus
allegations the offence is registered that too against a government officer
which could ruin his life is not proper because it would also finish the
possibility of reconciliation. The proceeding of Section 9 is also pending
between the parties.
22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case so also the view expressed by the Supreme
Court and also by this court, I am also of the opinion that in the present
case, there is no sufficient material available which prima facie
MCRC-55577-2024
sufficient to constitute the offence of 498-A and 294 of IPC. Therefore,
the petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioner on
16.08.2024 vide Crime No.29/2024 at Police Station Mahila Thana
Satna, District Satna, under Sections 498-A and 294 of IPC is
accordingly quashed.
23. Ex consequentia, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
