Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Aradhana @ Ashdeep Kaur W/O Shri ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
1 MCRC-13586-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13586 of 2024
SMT. ARADHANA @ ASHDEEP KAUR W/O SHRI SUDESH SINGH @
SANNI SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the applicants.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 / State.
Mr. Malkhan Singh Yadav - Advocate for respondent No. 2.
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of charge-sheet in Crime No.54/2024 registered at Police Station
- Lahar, District - Bhind for offence under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and
under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as further proceedings in
RCT No. 367/2024 pending in the Court of JMFC, Lahar, District - Bhind
qua the applicants namely Smt. Aradhana @ Ashdeep Kaur and Smt. Swati,
who are the sister-in-law (jethani) of respondent No. 2/complainant.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present application in short
are that respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR on the allegations that she got
married to Gyanendra Singh Tomar on 11.12.2019 in accordance with Hindu
rites and rituals. Her father had given Twenty Lakh rupees in cash, Mahindra
XUV 300 car and household articles worth Rs.2,50,000/- (Two Lakh Fifty
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
2 MCRC-13586-2024
Thousand rupees). After 15-20 days of marriage, her husband started passing
taunts on trivial issues and also started alleging that her parents have not
given sufficient dowry. On this issue, her husband Gyanendra, father-in-law
Prempal Singh Tomar, and mother-in-law Kusum also started harassing her
physically and mentally. Whenever applicants namely Aradhana and Swati
use to come to the matrimonial house of respondent No. 2, they were also
harassing her mentally on the issue of dowry. The entire aspect was narrated
by her to her father. For the last about one year, she is residing in her
parental home. On 16.1.2024, her husband Gyanendra Singh Tomar came to
her parental home and talked to her and insisted that her father should give
Two Lakh rupees and one gold chain and only then he would think of taking
her back to her matrimonial home. When it was replied by respondent No. 2
that her father has already given sufficient dowry as per his financial
capability and now he will not able to give anything more, on this issue, she
was slapped and thrown by her husband on the ground as a result she
sustained injuries on both of her cheeks and on right knee. After her father
and brother came back, then the entire incident was narrated by her to them
and, accordingly, FIR was lodged on 24.2.2024.
3. Challenging the FIR qua the applicants, it is submitted by counsel
for applicants that applicants are married sister-in-law (nanad) of respondent
No. 2. It is well established principle of law that in order to prosecute the
near and dear relatives of the husband, allegations must be specific and clear
and general and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to compel the near and
dear relatives of the husband to face the ordeal of trial. To buttress his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
3 MCRC-13586-2024
contention, counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgments passed by
the Supreme Court in the case of Kansraj vs. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in
(2000) 5 SCC 207, Monju Roy Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2015)
13 SCC 693, Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in
2013 (1) UC 155, K. Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Telangana reported
in (2018) 14 SCC 452, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR
2010 SC 3363, Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti reported in (2009) 10
SCC 184, and Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2012) 10 SCC
4. Per contra, the applicant is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
State as well as respondent No. 2. It is submitted by counsel for respondent
No. 2 that whenever the applicants used to come back to their parental home
(matrimonial home of respondent No. 2), they used to harass her mentally on
the issue of dowry. However, the fact that applicants are married women and
are residing in their matrimonial home in Ludhiyana and Shivpuri has not
been disputed by counsel for respondent No. 2.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties.
6. Allegation that on occasional visit to matrimonial respondent No. 2,
applicants were also harassing respondent No. 2 mentally is too general to
compel them to face the ordeal of trial. The manner in which mental cruelty
was committed by them has not been clarified. When the mental cruelty was
committed by them has also not been clarified.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Kansraj (supra) has held as under
:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
4 MCRC-13586-2024
"In the light of the evidence in the case we find substance in the
submission of the learned counsel for the defence that
Respondents 3 to 5 were roped in the case only on the ground of
being close relations of Respondent 2, the husband of the
deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other
relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand
of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts
attributed to persons other than the husband are required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures
and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the
offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however,
developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased
wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is
likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real
culprits. In their over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction
for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found
to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately
weaken the case of the prosecution even
against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant
case."
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Monju Roy (supra) has held as
under :-
"8.While we do not find any ground to interfere with the view
taken by the courts below that the deceased was subjected to
harassment on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, we
do find merit in the submission that possibility of naming all the
family members by way of exaggeration is not ruled out. In Kans
Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, this Court observed :
(SCC p. 215, para 5)
"5.........A tendency has, however, developed for roping
in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the
matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely
to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real
culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek
conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased
have been found to be making efforts for involving other
relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution
even against the real accused as appears to have happened in
the instant case."
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives
without there being specific material. Only the husband, his
parents or at best close family members may be expected to
demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations,
unless there is tangible material to support allegations made
against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is
not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
5 MCRC-13586-2024
material to support such role.
9. In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 15 SCC 415, it
was observed : (SCC p. 419, para 14) "14. No doubt, some of the
witnesses e.g. PW 5 Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the
deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh, brother of the
deceased, have stated that the deceased Gayatri told them that
dowry was demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also the
appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana Devi, but we are of
the opinion that it is possible that the names of Pradip Singh and
Sanjana Devi have been introduced only to spread the net wide as
often happens in cases like under Sections 498-A and 394 IPC, as
has been observed in several decisions of this Court e.g. in
Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388], etc.
Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi and
set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial
court insofar as it relates to them and we direct that they be
released forthwith unless required in connection with some other
case."
******
11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when a girl dies an
unnatural death, allegation of demand of dowry or harassment
which follows cannot be weighed in golden scales. At the same
time, omnibus allegation against all family members particularly
against brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on
same footing as husband and parents. In such case, apart from
general allegation of demand of dowry, the court has to be
satisfied that harassment was also caused by all the named
members."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha (supra) has held as
under:-
"8. We must, at the outset, state that the High Court's view on
jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the view.
However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into
consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to
appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are
extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each
of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage,
she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear
whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at
Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent
2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of
seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any
complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house,
the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general
allegations against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
6 MCRC-13586-2024
appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2
is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary
delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness
of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3,
which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that
by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has
tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of
the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal
proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an
abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the
FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2
and 3."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao (supra) has held as
under :-
"5. A perusal of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-
sheet discloses the fact that the appellants are not the immediate
family members of the third respondent/husband. They are the
maternal uncles of the third respondent. Except the bald statement
that they supported the third respondent who was harassing the
second respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the
third respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing
else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The
appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was
pending. The charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet
were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court.
6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the
interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a
court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere
to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant
relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry
deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the
basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of
Punjab and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P."
11. In the case of Preeti Gupta (supra) it has been held by the Supreme
Court as under:-
"34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the
complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
7 MCRC-13586-2024
the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a
Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the 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 complainant are required to be scrutinised with
great care and circumspection.
36. 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
an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful."
******
39. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in
the background of legal principles set out in the preceding
paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to
undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice,
we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the
appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court
is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed."
12. In the case of Neelu Chopra (supra), it has been held by the
Supreme Court, as
under :-
"9. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the
sections and the language of those sections is not the be all and
end all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice
of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each
and every accused and the role played by each and every accused
in committing of that offence.
10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It
does not show as to which accused has committed what offence
and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the
commission of offence. There could be said something against
Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but
he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances,
it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution
to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present
appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
8 MCRC-13586-2024
which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants."
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) has held
as under :-
"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.
21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad
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 disputes in
recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their 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 that matter was that the courts
would not encourage such disputes."
14. Considering the nature of allegations made against the applicants,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made in the FIR as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3604
9 MCRC-13586-2024
well as in the statement of respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. which is also in the line of the allegations made in the FIR, it is a fit
case where the prosecution of the applicants can be quashed.
15. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No. 54/2024 registered at Police
Station - Lahar, District - Bhind for offence under Sections 498-A, 323 of
IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and further proceedings in
RCT No. 367/2024 pending in the Court of JMFC, Lahar, District - Bhind
are hereby quashed qua the applicants - Smt. Aradhana @ Ashdeep Kaur and
Smt. Swati W/o Shri Gyanendra Singh Chouhan.
16. The application succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
