Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yakub Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
1 M.Cr.C. No. 3953 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3953 of 2023
YAKUB KHAN & OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Atul Gupta- Advocate for applicants.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for
quashment of FIR No.40/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana
Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 498A,
323 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2. Applicant No.1 is father-in-law; applicant No.2 is mother-in-law; applicant
No.3 is husband; and applicant No.4 is younger brother-in-law (Devar) of
respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR alleging that on 05.02.2020 she
got married to applicant No.3 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals. It was
stated that she had already lost her father and her marriage was performed by her
mother and brother. An amount of Rs.8 lacs was spent, out of which an amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
Rs.4 lacs was given in cash along with house-hold articles, one gold ring to
husband and one gold ring each to applicants No.1 and 2 respectively. One pair of
earrings and necklace was also given to her. For 2-3 months after her marriage,
she was kept properly in her matrimonial house. Thereafter, all the applicants
started harassing her on the ground of bringing less dowry. They used to say that
her parents have not given anything in the marriage and therefore, she should
bring an amount of Rs.10 lacs from her parental home and only thereafter she will
be allowed to live in her matrimonial house. She gave birth to a girl-child on
27.09.2021 and thereafter, harassment at the hands of in-laws aggravated and they
started saying that earlier she had not brought dowry of Rs.10 lacs and now she
has given birth to a girl child whereas they were expecting a boy-child and
accordingly they started harassing her and treating her with cruelty by assaulting
her. On account of continuous taunts, she went in depression and accordingly her
treatment was done at Morena and Gwalior. On 26.01.2022, when her medical
condition deteriorated then her parents were informed by her in-laws. Thereafter
her mother came to her matrimonial house and took her and her girl-child to
Shivpuri. Since then she is residing along with her mother. Applicants have not
come to take her back.
3. Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, it is submitted that so far
as applicant No.4-Prashant Chaudhary is concerned, there are no specific
allegations against him. It is submitted that in order to prosecute a near and dear
relative of the husband of complainant, the allegations must be specific and clear
and general & omnibus allegations are not sufficient to compel near and dear
relative of husband to face ordeal of trial. It is further submitted that police after
completing the investigation has also filed charge-sheet and respondent No.2 has
made similar allegations in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC.
Therefore it is clear that except making general and omnibus allegations against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
applicant No.4, no specific allegations have been made against him. So far as
applicants No.1 and 2 are concerned, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that
applicants had already expressed their apprehension that respondent No.2 may
lodge a false report, therefore, they had already represented to the Police with
regard to possibility of their false implication. It is further submitted that if the
intention of applicants was to harass her physically and mentally then they would
not have got her treated and the fact that she was admitted in the government
hospital where she remained hospitalized for 5-6 days clearly shows that
applicants were concerned about physical health of respondent No.2.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No.2 that there are
specific allegations against applicants. Respondent No.2 was harassed physically
and mentally on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. After mother of
respondent No.2 took her back to her house on 26.01.2022 thereafter applicants
did not bring her back. Therefore, it amounts to desertion of respondent No.2 on
account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
5. Counsel for respondent/State also submitted that there are specific
allegations against applicants warranting their prosecution.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Applicant No.4-Prashant Choudhary:
7. Before considering the allegations made against applicant No.4 who is the
younger brother-in-law (Devar) of complainant/respondent No.2, this Court
would like to consider the law governing the prosecution of near and dear
relatives of husband.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, reported in
(2000) 5 SCC 207, has held as under:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
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."
The Supreme Court, in the case of Monju Roy v. State of W.B. reported in
(2015) 13 SCC 693, 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-fulfilment 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 [(2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] , 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
overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum
people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be
making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately
weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real
accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."
The court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives
without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents
or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry
or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is
tangible material to support allegations made against such distant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to
summon them in the absence of any specific role and material to
support such role.
9. In Raja Lal Singh v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 15 SCC 415 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 539] 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 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
511] , 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 a 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 the brothers and sisters and other relatives do not stand on
the 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.
The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
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 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."
Thus, it is clear that general and omnibus allegation against near and dear
relative of husband is not sufficient to compel him/her to face the ordeal of trial.
If the FIR lodged by the complainant as well as her statement recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is considered then it is clear that except making allegation
that after 3-4 months of her marriage her in laws started harassing her on the
question of demand of dowry and were alleging that her parents have not given
anything in dowry nothing substantial has been alleged against applicant No.4. It
is further alleged that they also started demanding Rs.10 lacs and were also not
happy with the birth of a girl child. However, there is no mention as to what
specific role was played by applicant No.4. A general allegation that applicant
No.4 along with other applicants had started harassing her on the question of
bringing less dowry, without disclosing any incident or the manner of harassment,
this Court is of considered opinion that the allegations against applicant No.4 are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
general and omnibus and are not specific and direct. Although counsel for
respondents submitted that compelling a married woman to live in her parental
home amounts to cruelty yet if the facts of the present case are considered then it
is clear that it is the mother of complainant who took her back to parental home
and allegations are that applicants are not taking respondent No.2 back to her
matrimonial home. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether it is
the younger brother-in-law (Devar) who is expected to take his
Bhabhi/respondent No.2 back to her matrimonial home or it is for applicants No.1
to 3 to take her back.
By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that applicant No.4 can take
respondent No.2 back to her matrimonial home even in absence of consent of
applicants No.1 to 3. It is not the case where respondent No.2 was ousted from
her matrimonial home but after her discharge from hospital her mother took her
back to her parental home and now applicants No.1 to 3 are not taking her back to
her matrimonial house. Since applicant No.4 is not responsible either morally or
legally to take respondent No.2 back to her matrimonial house without consent of
applicants No.1 to 3, therefore, it cannot be said that compelling respondent No.2
to live in her parental home amounts to continuous cruelty on the part of
respondent No.4. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that the
allegations made against respondent No.4, namely, Prashant Chaudhary are not
sufficient to compel him to face the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the FIR and the
charge-sheet filed against applicant No.4 for offences punishable under Sections
498A, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act in Crime No.40/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana
Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (M.P.) as well as the criminal proceedings arising out
of the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed.
Applicants No.1 and 2- Yakub Khan and Smt. Kamrunnisha:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
8. Applicants No.1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent
No.2. The allegations made in the FIR have already been reproduced in the
previous paragraphs. There are specific allegations that applicants No.1 and 2
were passing taunts for bringing less dowry and they have not allowed her to
come back to her matrimonial home after 26.01.2022. It is true that there are no
specific instances of cruelty mentioned in the FIR or in the statement recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. but passing taunts by parents-in-law with regard to
bringing less dowry by itself would be a cruelty as held by Supreme Court in the
case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260. Accordingly, in the light of the allegations made
in the FIR, this Court is of considered opinion that there is sufficient material
available on record warranting prosecution of applicants No.1 and 2 and hence
application filed by applicants No.1 and 2 is hereby rejected.
Applicant No.3-Nishant Chaudhary:
9. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that the FIR was lodged only after
the institution of an application for restitution of conjugal rights and the FIR is
delayed.
10. The next question for consideration is that if FIR is lodged after the suit for
restitution of conjugal rights is instituted then whether such FIR can be treated as
a counter-blast or not?
The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi,
reported in (2007) 12 SCC 369 has held as under:
"14. From a plain reading of the findings arrived at by the High
Court while quashing the FIR, it is apparent that the High Court
had relied on extraneous considerations and acted beyond the
allegations made in the FIR for quashing the same in exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. We have
already noted the illustrations enumerated in BhajanLal
case [1992 Supp (1) SCC335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and from a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
careful reading of these illustrations, we are of the view that the
allegations emerging from the FIR are not covered by any of the
illustrations as noted hereinabove. For example, we may take up
one of the findings of the High Court as noted hereinabove. The
High Court has drawn an adverse inference on account of the FIR
being lodged on 31-12-2001 while the appellant was forced out of
the matrimonial home on 25-5-2001.
15. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
High Court was not justified in drawing an adverse inference
against the appellant wife for lodging the FIR on 31-12-2001 on
the ground that she had left the matrimonial home at least six
months before that. This is because, in our view, the High Court
had failed to appreciate that the appellant and her family members
were, during this period, making all possible efforts to enter into a
settlement so that Respondent 2 husband would take her back to
the matrimonial home. If any complaint was made during this
period, there was every possibility of not entering into any
settlement with Respondent 2 husband.
16. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was filed only when
all efforts to return to the matrimonial home had failed and
Respondent 2 husband had filed a divorce petition under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in our view, filing
of a divorce petition in a civil court cannot be a ground to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code as it is well
settled that criminal and civil proceedings are separate and
independent and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring
to an end a criminal proceeding even if they arise out of the same
set of facts. Such being the position, we are, therefore, of the view
that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482
of the Code has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and
has acted in excess of its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High
Thus, it is clear that findings recorded by the Civil Court are not binding on
Criminal Court. The criminal case is to be decided on the basis of allegations
made in the said proceedings. If the wife was of the view that with the passage of
time things would improve and did not lodge FIR then it cannot be said that her
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
patience which came to an end after institution of legal proceedings by her
husband is wrong or her subsequent action against her husband is counter-blast to
the legal proceedings initiated by her husband.
11. Under these circumstances, FIR lodged by respondent No.2 cannot be
quashed on the ground that the same was lodged after institution of application
for restitution of conjugal rights.
12. So far as the question of delayed FIR is concerned, admittedly, the period
of limitation for taking cognizance of a case where the maximum sentence is
three years, is three years. Furthermore this Court has already come to a
conclusion that since applicants No.1 to 3 are not bringing respondent No.2 back
to her matrimonial house, presumably on account of non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry then in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384, the said act of in-
laws of the wife can be said to be a continuous cruelty. The Supreme Court in
Rupali Devi (supra) has held as under:
"14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under Section
498-A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "the
intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering
on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage
(abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)". Cruelty can be both
physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the
wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the
mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the
matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same
home for fear of being ill-treated are aspects that cannot be
ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression
"cruelty" appearing in Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The
emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the
physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatise the wife even
after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the
parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in
the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1572
occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental
trauma and the psychological distress caused by the acts of the
husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled
the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her
parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental
cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating
verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even
though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such
place."
13. Applicant No.3-Nishant Chaudhary is the husband of respondent No.2.
There are specific allegations of physical and mental harassment. There are
allegations of assaulting respondent No.2. It is the duty of husband to maintain his
wife in a dignified manner. The demand of dowry shows greediness on the part of
husband and if the wife is maltreated on account of non-fulfillment of demand of
dowry then the prosecution against husband cannot be quashed.
14. Accordingly, application filed by applicant No.4 - Prashant Chaudhary is
allowed whereas application filed by applicants No.1 to 3 Yakub Khan, Smt.
Kamrunnisha and Nishant Chaudhary is dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
