Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Neerja Patel vs Viveknand Patel on 14 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7290
1 MCRC-14988-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14988 of 2023
ATAL BIHARI PATEL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Shailendra Verma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41811 of 2023
SMT. NEERJA PATEL
Versus
VIVEKNAND PATEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Sunder Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53589 of 2024
SMT NEERJ PATEL
Versus
VIVIKANDNA PATEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Sunder Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manas Mani Verma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7290
2 MCRC-14988-2023
The petitioners in M.Cr.C. No.14988/2023 have filed this petition
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No.70/2019 and
subsequent proceedings.
2. The facts of the case in short are that the marriage of
complainant-respondent No.2 was solemnized on 14.05.2015 with
Vivekanand Patel as per Hindu customs and rituals. The petitioner No.1 is
the elder brother, petitioner No.2 is the wife of another brother Late
Chandrashekhar Patel (Bhabi) and petitioner No.3 Saroj Patel is sister of
Vivekanand Patel (Nanad). On 19.06.2017, the respondent No.2 gave birth
to a male child namely Vishwa Pratap.
3. Respondent No.2 submitted a written complaint to the Mahila
Thana, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur alleging demand of dowry, atrocities, assault
jointly by husband and other family members i.e. these petitioners.
According to the complainant on 20.09.2019 her father took her to parental
house as she was fed up of the atrocities committed by her husband and in-
laws. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered and she was sent
for MLC. She was examined by the doctor on the same day, who found two
abrasions and sprain on two other parts of the body.
4. Police registered an FIR No.70/2019 under Section 498-A, 294,
506, 342, 323/34 of IPC against the petitioners and husband. The statement
of witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation the charge-
sheet has been filed on 20.09.2019 under Sectioons 498-A, 294, 506, 342,
323/34 of IPC. Hence this petition before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that FIR has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7290
3 MCRC-14988-2023
registered as counterblast because the husband of the respondent No.2 has
filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court. The present petitioners
have been falsely implicated in this case in order to put pressure on the
husband. These petitioners have been living separately from the husband of
the respondent No.2. In support of the aforesaid contention, Samgra ID of
husband and other family members has been filed.
6. It is further submitted that it has become the tendency of
implicating all the family members by leveling omnibus allegations of
demand of dowry and atrocities. The husband is ready to face trial as he is
living separately and main allegations are against him. Therefore, learned
counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of
Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs. State of Telangana and
another, 2024 INSC 953 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal )
No.16239 of 2024.
7. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 submitted
that there are specific allegations against these petitioners of assault and
which is established from the MLC. Hence no case for quashment at this
stage is made out.
8. Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
argued that the mini trial cannot be conducted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
by this Court. All the allegations are liable to be established by the
prosecution before the trial Court. The documents filed by the petitioners can
be proved by way of evidence before the trial Court. The charges have been
framed under Sections 498-A, 323/34, 506 Part-II, 294, 342 of the IPC and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7290
4 MCRC-14988-2023
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence petition be dismissed.
Heard.
9. In FIR the period of incident is said to have been committed from
14.05.2015 to 18.09.2019 i.e. from the date of marriage to one day prior to
the date of registration of FIR which are omnibus in nature. The allegations
against the petitioners are not by name. It is simply mentioned that Nanad,
Jeth, Jethani. The allegations are mainly against the husband, who has not
approached this Court. The complainant lived with her husband till
19.06.2017 and she delivered a child. Till such date no such report was ever
lodged by her against any one. It is nowhere said in the FIR that these
petitioners used to share common house with the husband. The photo-copy
of Samgra ID is filed along with this petition shows that mother-Gulabbai,
Vinita Bai, Vaibhav Pratap are residing with husband - Vivekanand Patel and
his wife Neerja i.e. complainant since 03.03.2013. The name of respondent
No.2 was added in Samagra ID on 18.06.2016 i.e. after the marriage. The
name of present petitioners are not there, therefore the contention of the
petitioner are liable to be accepted and they all have been living separately
from the husband. Apart from this, petitioner No.1 is a Teacher posted in
Government Primary School. Petitioner has filed a rent agreement and the
affidavit of the local persons to show that he is living in rented house. A
partition deed executed on 10.05.2009 has also been filed to show that the
partition had taken place long back between the brothers, sister and mother.
10. It is correct that there is tendency of implicating all the family
members along with the husband specially in the dowry case and the case
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7290
5 MCRC-14988-2023
under Section 498-A. Apex Court time and again noticed that such misuse of
process of law and quashed the complaint against the relatives. It is also
correct in this case that first husband filed a petition for divorce, thereafter
this FIR was lodged leveling these allegations. The paragraphs in the case of
Dara Lakshmi (supra) is quoted as under :
"25. A mere reference to the names of family members
in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
without specific allegations indicating their active
involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-
recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that
there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of
the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out
of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and
sweeping accusations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in
such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case, appellant
Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of
appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and
have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant
No.1 and respondentno.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be
dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would
be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of
specific allegations made against each of them.
26. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and
his wife i.e. the send respondent herein resided at
Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in
Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015
and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the
second respondent gave birth to two children.
Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any
harassment for dowry during the said period or that
there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second
respondent in response to the missing complaint filed
by the first appellant herein on 05.10.2021 addressed a
letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting for closure
of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left
the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a
quarrel with the appellant No.1 because of one
Govindan with whom the second respondent was in
contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had
also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7290
6 MCRC-14988-2023
future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the
allegations of the second respondent against the
appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not
believable.
27. We find that the High Court noted that there were
also allegations against respondent No.2 and
matrimonial disputes' are pending between the parties.
Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that
custodial interrogation of the appellants was not
necessary and protected the personal liberty of the
appellants directing the Investigation Officer not to
arrest the appellants till the completion of the
investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. Albeit the
said findings and observations, the High Court
ultimately refused to quash the criminal proceedings
against the appellants.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way
of any amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted
on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring
swift intervention by the State. However, in recent
years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial
disputes across the country, accompanied by growing
discord and tension within the institution of marriage,
consequently, there has been a growing tendency to
misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a
tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the
husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalized allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if
not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal
processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting
tactics by a wife and/ or her family. Sometimes,
recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC
against the husband and his family in order to seek
compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned
against prosecuting the husband and his family in the
absence of a clear prima facie against them.
29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any
woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has
been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC
should remain silent and forbear herself from making a
complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is
not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we
should not encourage a case like as in the present once,
where as counterblast to the petition for dissolution of
marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the
second respondent herein, a complaint under Section
498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7290
7 MCRC-14988-2023
insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the
protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the
matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security in the form of
dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the
present case."
11. In view of above, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is
allowed. FIR No.70/2019 dated 20.09.2019 registered at Mahila Thana,
Jabalpur under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 323/34 of the IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Act, charge-sheet and order of framing of charge and its
all subsequent proceedings of RCT/6549/2019 arising out of FIR vide Crime
No.70/2019 against the petitioners herein, are hereby quashed.
12. M.Cr.C. No.41811/2023 is filed by the complainant under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the trial Court to expedite the
trial pending Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur bearing
No.RCT/6549/2019.
13. Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner-
complainant submits that despite issuance of warrant, the prosecution is not
producing the witnesses. The trial is pending since 2021, therefore direction
be issued to expedite the trial.
14. A blanket direction cannot be issued to the trial Court to expedite
the trial as a special case because all the pending cases are of similar nature.
However, the trial Court shall make effort to expedite the trial and see that
there should not be unnecessary adjournments by the prosecution or accused.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No.41811/2023 is disposed off with the aforesaid
observations.
15. M.Cr.C. No.53589/2024 is filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7290
8 MCRC-14988-2023
2023 challenging the order dated 18.11.2024, whereby the pen drive has
been taken on record as an documentary evidence.
16. During the trial, the respondent No.1-husband has filed a
conversation of complainant with him in the pen drive, which has been taken
on record by the impugned order.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that provisions of
Section 16-B(2)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act has not been complied with
while accepting the pen drive as a documentary evidence.
18. As on today, the trial is at preliminary stage. The pen-drive has
only been taken on record but it is required to be proved as per law in the
evidence. Therefore, no interference is required. Hence, M.Cr.C.
No.53589/2024 is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
RC
