Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aditya Kumar Ramnarayan Prasd vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 January, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
1 MCRC-23183-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 28 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23183 of 2024
ADITYA KUMAR RAMNARAYAN PRASD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate Assisted by Shri Akhley Johnmathew - Advocate
for the applicant.
Shri K.K. Verma - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri P.P. Budhuliya - Advocate for respondent No.2.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23178 of 2024
RAM NARAYAN PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashley Johnmathew - Advocate
for the applicants.
Shri K.K. Verma - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri P.P. Budhuliya - Advocate for respondent No.2
ORDER
This order shall govern disposal of M.Cr.C. No.23183/2024 and M.Cr.C.
No.23178/2024 as well. For the sake of convenience, facts of M.Cr.C.
No.23183/2024 are being taken note of.
2. These petitions have been filed by the applicants under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.17/2024, proceedings
pending in RCT No.2584/2024 and the charge-sheet.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
2 MCRC-23183-2024
3. The facts as detailed in the petition reveal that respondent No.2
(wife of applicant in M.Cr.C. No.23183/2024) moved a written complaint dated
03/10/2023 with Police Station: Mahila Thana, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur alleging
that she was being harassed and humiliated at the behest of her husband who is
applicant in M.Cr.C. No.23183/2024, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-
law (applicants in M.Cr.C. No.23178/2024). As per complaint, marriage of
applicant in M.Cr.C. No.23183/2024 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on
28/11/2019 at Krishna Hotel, Jabalpur as per Hindu Customs. At the time of
marriage, certain gift items were given by the father of respondent No.2. After
marriage, respondent No.2 started residing at her in-laws house in Navi Mumbai
and from that place itself, under the garb of demand of dowry, respondent No.2
was treated with cruelty which is evident from the further part of First Information
Report. Accordingly, on the strength of said FIR, police registered the case against
the present applicants. Thus, seeking quashment of FIR and ensued proceedings
including charge-sheet, these petitions have been filed. Applicant No.2
4. Senior Counsel for the applicants contends that the FIR has been
lodged to unnecessarily harass and humiliate the present applicants. It is
contended by the counsel that while lodging the FIR, there is suppression by
respondent No.2 regarding litigations which were already pending between the
husband and respondent No.2. Counsel for the applicants contends that
immediately after marriage, behavior of respondent No.2 towards applicants, was
indifferent. The husband of respondent No.2 had shifted to New Zealand, and
respondent No.2 never agreed to come at New Zealand and stay with her husband.
As respondent No.2 was making unreasonable demands regarding costly gifts, the
husband/applicant made all efforts to fulfill the demand made by respondent No.2
in order to save his marriage, but ultimately respondent No.2 did not agree to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
3 MCRC-23183-2024
cohabit with the husband/applicant.
5. The husband/applicant then filed a petition seeking dissolution of
marriage before the Family Court, at Auckland, New Zealand and after receiving
notice of proceedings instituted by the husband/applicant, as a counter blast,
respondent No.2 lodged the FIR against the applicants. Thus, the FIR is merely a
device to unnecessarily harass and humiliate the present applicants and has also
been lodged after finding that her husband/applicant had approached the Family
Court, Auckland, New Zealand seeking dissolution of marriage. It is contended by
the counsel that the Family Court, Auckland, New Zealand, even passed an order
dated 28/02/2024 of dissolution of marriage and as such the entire proceedings are
unsustainable, and deserve to be set aside.
6. To support his contention as regards FIR being counter blast, Senior
Counsel has placed reliance in the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and Ors. Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors. in Criminal Revision No.521/2021.
7. Senior Counsel further contends that the FIR palpably reflects that on
the strength of general and omnibus allegations, the applicants have been
implicated. The applicants never harassed or humiliated respondent No.2. The
allegations are not at all specific and it is unfortunate that relatives of husband
have been roped in unnecessarily. To support his contention as regards general
and omnibus allegations, counsel has placed reliance in the cases of Preeti Gupta
and another v. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], Geeta
Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2012) 10 SCC
741], Kahakashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others
[(2022) 6SCC 599], Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023 LiveLaw(SC)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
4 MCRC-23183-2024
731], Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. in Criminal Appeal
No.2379/2024 and Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2621.
8. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and it is contended that
there are direct allegations against the applicants, therefore, interference at this
stage is not warranted.
9. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that both petitions are liable to
be dismissed inasmuch as, the applicants right from the date of marriage, started
torturing respondent No.2. There was continuous demand of dowry and she was
subjected to taunt on numbers of occasions and was pressurized to bring dowry.
Even under the pressure of present applicants, a Will was executed by the father of
respondent No.2 in her favour as regards house which was owned by father of
respondent No.2 and the "Stree Dhan" of respondent No.2 was also kept by her
mother-in-law. Efforts were made by respondent No.2 to stay in Navi Mumbai but
she was not allowed by the applicants to enter in the house. Apart from the
demand of execution of sale-deed of the house in favour of husband of respondent
No.2, there was demand of Four Wheeler and Rs.10,00,000/- as well. It is also
contended by the counsel that institution of proceedings for divorce, cannot be a
ground to set aside the criminal proceedings and this aspect was taken note of by
the Apex Court in Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and Ors. reported in (2007) 12
SCC 369 and the said decision was further relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.16003/2024 (Tamish Saluja and Ors. Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Ors.)
10. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
11. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
12. To deal with the rival submissions so advanced by the parties, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
5 MCRC-23183-2024
first necessary to deal with the contents of FIR. The FIR contains allegations that
after marriage, respondent No.2 went to her in-laws in Navi Mumbai on
30/11/2019 where she was subjected to taunt and cruelty. Against all the
applicants there are allegations that they treated respondent No.2 with cruelty.
Thereafter on 14/12/2019, as per respondent No.2 she came back to her parents
place and father of respondent No.2 executed a Will of house in favour of
respondent No.2 just in order to meet the demand of applicants. Thereafter,
respondent No.2 again went to Navi Mumbai on 01/01/2020 where she stayed for
a period of 3 days. It is stated in the FIR that again respondent No.2 was harassed
and she was sent back to her parents place and even her Stree Dhan was kept by
her mother-in-law.
13. Later part of FIR contains the allegation that on 01/01/2020,
respondent No.2 was not allowed to enter in the house and she later on came to
know that her husband had secured a job in New Zealand. Thereafter, respondent
No.2 made an attempt to reside in the house of in-laws at Navi Mumbai on the
dates so mentioned in the FIR but respondent No.2 was not allowed to enter in the
house of applicants. It was further alleged in the FIR that the husband of
respondent No.2 had entered into wedlock with some other woman who hailed
from the State of Bihar. The aforesaid FIR is lodged on the basis of complaint
dated 03/10/2023 made by respondent No.2 and on the basis of this complaint,
FIR was registered on 04/03/2024.
14. A perusal of order dated 28/02/2024 passed by Family Court,
Auckland, New Zealand reveals that the proceedings for dissolution of marriage
was moved by the husband/applicant in August, 2023. Thereafter, a notice was
issued to respondent No.2. Notice issued to respondent No.2 has been brought on
record by respondent No.2 as Annexure R-2/6 with her reply to this petition. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
6 MCRC-23183-2024
averments regarding Annexure R-2/6 have been made in paragraph 10 of her reply
in which it is nowhere mentioned by respondent No.2 as to when she received
notice dated 19/09/2023 (Annexure R-2/6). However, during the course of
argument, counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the said notice was found
outside the house of respondent No.2 on 27/09/2023. Therefore, it is safe to
conclude that by the end of September, 2023, respondent No.2 was aware that her
husband/applicant had instituted proceedings before Family Court, Auckland,
New Zealand for dissolution of marriage. The Family Court, Auckland, New
Zealand passed the order dated 28/02/2024 and the said order (Annexure P/5)
reveals that the said order was a bi-parte order.
15. After passing of the order dated 28/02/2024, complaint made by
respondent No.2 was registered as FIR No.17/2024 on 04/03/2024. The complaint
made by respondent No.2 to the police Station Mahila Thana, Madan Mahal,
Jabalpur, does not contain any mention of the proceedings which were initiated
before Family Court, Auckland, New Zealand by the husband. In the complaint, it
is mentioned by respondent No.2 that her husband while residing in New Zealand
entered into wedlock with some other woman who hailed from the State of Bihar.
Therefore, this Court finds force in the submissions of Senior Counsel for the
applicants that the FIR was lodged as a counter blast to the proceedings instituted
by the husband/applicant in M.Cr.C. No.23183/2024 before the Family Court,
Auckland, New Zealand. The notice of dissolution of marriage, issued by Family
Court, Auckland, New Zealand, was received by respondent No.2 on 27/09/2023
and upon receiving the said notice, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on
03/10/2023. Thereafter, it appears that respondent No.2 went to Auckland, New
Zealand and also appeared before the Family Court, Auckland, New Zealand and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
7 MCRC-23183-2024
after hearing respondent No.2 also, Family Court, Auckland, New Zealand passed
an order of dissolution of marriage.
16. After passing of the said order, report lodged by respondent No.2 was
registered on 04/03/2014 at 16:21 PM. Therefore, proximity of period while
making a complaint to the police, after receiving a notice and thereafter
registration of FIR immediately after decree of dissolution, raises reasonable
presumption that the FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 as a counter blast to the
proceedings instituted by applicant/husband. The Family Court, Auckland, New
Zealand in paragraph 10 of the order has concluded that the applicant was living
in New Zealand since August, 2021, and throughout the said period, respondent
No.2 was living in India. Therefore, apparently there was inaction on the part of
respondent No.2 in lodging the FIR till the proceedings were instituted by the
applicant/husband in Auckland, New Zealand.
17. The Apex Court in the case of Dara Laxmi Narayana & Ors. Vs. State
of Telangana and Anr. reported in SCC Online SC 3682 dealt with the issue as
regards FIR being counter blast and held in paragraphs 25 and 29 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 generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised
allegations 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
8 MCRC-23183-2024
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 respondent No.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."
"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 one, where as a 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 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."
18. The Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.2379/2024 (Achin Gupta Vs.
State of Haryana and Anr.) decided on 03/05/2024 also dealt with the issue in
paragraph 19 regarding FIR as counter blast which is reproduced herein below:
"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."
19. This Court also while dealing with the issue regarding FIR as counter
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
9 MCRC-23183-2024
blast in the case of Abhishek Pandey held in paragraph 17 as under:
"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 constitute the
offence as alleged against the applicants."
20. The proceedings instituted for dissolution of marriage though not part
of the charge-sheet, but can be taken note of in order to read between the lines and
this aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in paragraph 13 in the case
of Mahmood Ali and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 950 which is held as under:
"13. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We
say so because once the complainant decides to proceed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
10 MCRC-23183-2024
against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments
made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look
into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
l o o k into many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read
in between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a
case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple
FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the registration of
multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the
issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal
grudge as alleged."
21. The aforesaid law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court
prima facie indicates the nexus between the institution of proceedings by the party
for divorce or dissolution of marriage with the lodging of report by the other
spouse under Section 498A of IPC.
22. Apart from the fact of lodging of FIR after receiving notice of
application for dissolution of marriage, it is also germane to take into
consideration the fact that the allegation against the applicants are general and
omnibus. There are no specific instances of cruelty so far as alleged demand of
dowry is concerned. There is allegation against all the applicants which are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
11 MCRC-23183-2024
general. There is apparent contradiction in the FIR as the allegation against the
relatives of husband in the FIR that respondent No.2 was not allowed to stay in the
house of in-laws at Navi Mumbai, despite efforts made by respondent No.2 on
01/01/2020, whereas in the second part of the FIR it is mentioned that on the same
day i.e 01/01/2020 respondent No.2 went to Navi Mumbai and she stayed there for
three days and thereafter, she was sent back. There is no mention of date, time and
place when the demand was made by the applicants regarding car and cash of
Rs.10,00,000/-. The individual acts of applicants have not been specified in the
FIR.
23. The factum of general and omnibus allegations have been considered
by the Apex Court in catena of judgments. The Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and
another v. State of Jharkhand and another - (2010) 7 SCC 667 observed in
Paragraphs 34 & 35 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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
12 MCRC-23183-2024
24. The Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2024 (Achin Gupta
Vs. State of Haryana & another) (Supra) requested the legislature to look into the
issue and take into consideration the informed public opinion and pragmatic
realities and make necessary changes in the relevant provision of law. The Apex
Court while dealing with the issue regarding general and omnibus allegations
against the husband including his family members, has held in paragraph 18 as
under:
"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."
25. The Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan Kausar (supra), has held in
paragraphs 16 and 18 as under:
"16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v.
State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it
was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6).
"6. ... 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."
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of
the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
13 MCRC-23183-2024
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
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. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed
against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity
of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are
concerned, the allegations made against them being general and
omnibus, do not warrant prosecution."
26. The aforesaid analysis clearly reveals that the FIR has been lodged as
a counter blast to the proceedings instituted by the applicant/husband before the
Family Court, Auckland, New Zealand. Respondent No.2 never made any effort
to lodge any report against the applicants before receiving the notice of dissolution
of marriage. The applicant/husband of respondent No.2 shifted to New Zealand
and was residing there since August 2021. Respondent No.2 during this period,
when the applicant/husband left for New Zealand in August 2021, till 03/10/2023
for more than 2 years, did not make any effort to lodge the report. Therefore, it
cannot be said that respondent No.2 was making effort to save her marriage and
only upon coming to know that the husband/applicant had filed a petition for
divorce, she decided the lodge the report as she had lost all hopes.
27. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, reliance on the
decisions of this Court in Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and Ors. (supra) and in
the case of Tamish Saluja and Ors. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors. (Supra) is also misplaced and is of no assistance to respondent No.2.
28. Resultantly, this Court is of the considered view that as there are no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4400
14 MCRC-23183-2024
specific allegations and FIR is merely a counter blast to the proceedings of
dissolution of marriage, hence, in view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in
the aforementioned decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the
prosecution launched against the applicants is unsustainable being based on
general and omnibus allegations.
29. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed.
30. F.I.R bearing Crime No.17/2024, Charge Sheet and all proceedings of
RCT No.2584/2024 stand quashed. They are discharged of the charges framed
against them. Bail bond if executed by the applicants also stand discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
