Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nand Kishore Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 January, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
1 MCRC-36111-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36111 of 2024
NAND KISHORE PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for applicants.
Shri K.K. Verma - Govt. Advocate for respondent / State.
Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for respondent no.2
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment
of FIR registered vide Crime No.40/2024 at Police Station Mahila
Thana, Jabalpur in respect of an offence punishable under Sections 85,
351(2), 316(2), 296, 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and ensued proceedings.
2. The applicant no.1 is father-in-law, applicant no.2 is mother-in-
law, applicant no.3 is husband and applicant no.4 is brother-in-law
(devar) of respondent no.2. As per the FIR, the marriage of applicant
no.3 with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 08.12.2016. At the time
of marriage, cousin brother of respondent no.2, paid cash and also gave
jewellery in dowry even a Scorpio Car was also given in dowry but later
on, the respondent no.2 was subjected to demand of a Fortuner Car and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
2 MCRC-36111-2024
under the garb of said demand, the respondent no.2 was tortured and was
also subjected to cruelty at the behest of the present applicants. The
further allegations were levelled that when the respondent no.2 made an
attempt to come back to matrimonial home, she was not permitted by the
applicants to enter in the house, hence, the report was lodged. The report
and ensued proceedings are being challenged in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the respondent
no.2 cohabited with the applicant no.3/husband for a very short span of
time. She on her own volition left her maternal home and thereafter she
never came back to matrimonial house. As the respondent no.2 was not
returning back to matrimonial house, the husband/applicant no.3 on
05.12.2019 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. The respondent no.2 filed reply to the said application which is
contained in Annexure-A/4. As per paragraphs 14 and 15 of the reply, it
was admitted by the respondent no.2 that a Fortuner Car was already
given by them at the time of marriage. It is contended by the counsel that
if the Fortuner Car was already given at the time of marriage, there was
no question of demanding the same car again by the applicants. It is
further contended by the counsel that paragraphs 14 and 15 do not
contain any allegations against the other applicants apart from the
applicant no.3/husband that they demanded Fortuner Car. So far as
demand pertaining to Foutuner Car is concerned, the said allegations in
paragraphs 14 and 15 of the application filed under Section 9 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
3 MCRC-36111-2024
Hindu Marriage Act is only against the applicant no.3/husband.
4. It is contended by the counsel that the respondent no.2 also filed
an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and
demanded maintenance pendent lite. In the said application, there was no
mention of any allegation pertaining to demand of dowry. The said
application contained in Annexure-A/5. The counsel submits that the
proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act were
subsequently closed by the Family Court, Jabalpur. Thereafter, on
25.07.2024, the applicant no.3 filed a petition for divorce under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The notice of the same was dispatched to
respondent no.2 on 02.08.2024 and when the factum of issuance of
notice was in the knowledge of respondent no.2, thus, she lodged the
impugned FIR on 03.08.2024. It is contended by the counsel that the
conduct of respondent no.2 makes it abundantly clear that as a counter
blast to the proceedings instituted by the applicant no.3/husband under
Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the FIR has been lodged. It
is contended by the counsel that the FIR has been lodged in order to
harass and humiliate the applicants. It is the further contention of the
counsel that as the applicant no.3 was posted at different places and the
documents in that regard have been brought on record as Annexure-
A/10, therefore, the allegations pertaining to demand of Fortuner Car in
dowry are baseless and unsustainable.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that when the FIR is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
4 MCRC-36111-2024
counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicant no.3/husband,
the same deserves to be quashed and in support of the said contention,
the counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. in Criminal Appeal
No.2379/2024 and in the case of Dara Laxmi Narayana & Ors. Vs. State
of Telangana and Anr. reported in SCC Online SC 3682 and Rajiv
Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330].
6. Learned counsel for the applicants also contends that in the
present case, all the family members of the husband have been
implicated on the basis of omnibus and general allegations and in
support of the said contention, the counsel has placed reliance on the
decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Nand Kishore
Pandey and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. (Cr. M.P.
No.1075/2019) and in the case of Rahul Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and Anr. (Cr. M.P. No.677/2021).
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in the cases of Sh. Bhupendra Singh and Ors.
vs. State of M.P. and Anr. (M.Cr.C. No.11514/2017), Faiz Ahmad &
Ors. vs. The State of M.P. and Ors. (M.Cr.C. No.28374/2024), Anurag
Chadar and Ors. vs. The State of M.P. and Ors. (M.Cr.C.
No.30721/2024) and Amit Pandey and Ors. vs. The State of M.P. and
Ors. (M.Cr.C. No.11797/2023)
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
5 MCRC-36111-2024
deserves to be dismissed as there are direct allegations against the
applicants. At this stage, no interference with the FIR and ensued
proceedings is warranted as the FIR palpably reflects the allegations of
commission of offence.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also submits this is a
petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court cannot take into
consideration any other documents apart from the documents which are/
part of the charge-sheet. The application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act or reply thereof cannot be taken into consideration and
accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. It is further contended
by the counsel that the stand with regard to applicant's unavailability on
the date of incident is concerned on the strength of Annexure-P/10, the
same is also misconceived. As the applicant no.3 had gone to Police
Station Megoan, Bhind and it was easy to reach within 10 hours to
Jabalpur, therefore, the applicant no.3 cannot seek any assistance from
the documents which are part of Annexure-P/10. It is contended by the
counsel that the defence document cannot be considered at the stage of
consideration of petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has placed reliance
on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Supriya Jain vs. The
State of Haryana and Ors. [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494] and submits that
the documents cannot be taken into consideration.
11. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
6 MCRC-36111-2024
this Court in the cases of Nitin Pahariya vs. The State of M.P. (M.Cr.C.
No.21788/2023), Sagar and Ors. vs. The State of M.P. & Anr. (M.Cr.C.
No.16026/2024) and Dheeraj Kumar Gera & Ors. vs. The State of M.P.
& Anr. (M.Cr.C. No.4715/2023).
12. It is also contended by the counsel that even after filing of a
divorce petition, there is no impediment or embargo in lodging the FIR
and it cannot be said that the FIR is counter blast to the proceedings
initiated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
13. The counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in the case of Nitish Umariya & Ors vs. The State of M.P. & Anr.
(M.Cr.C. No.46355/2019).
14. Apart from the aforesaid, the counsel submits that the
interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not warranted and has
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa & Anr. [(2002) 3 SCC 89].
15. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
16. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
17. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent no.2 lodged
the FIR while levelling the allegations that after the marriage, she was
confronted with a demand of a Fortuner Car by the present applicants.
The FIR reveals that at the time of marriage apart from the cash,
jewellery items were given and there was a demand of four wheeler by
the applicant no.3/husband, therefore, the Scorpio Car was also given. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
7 MCRC-36111-2024
the following 2 months after marriage, the respondent no.2 visited her
parental house on various occasions and when she came back to her
matrimonial house, she was ill-treated by the present applicants and they
made a demand of a Fortuner Car and they pressurized the respondent
no.2 to bring a Fortuner Car from her parents. The husband of
respondent no.2 also threatened that if she does not bring the Fortuner
Car, her life would be a mess. The FIR further contains the allegations
that the applicant no.3 dropped the respondent no.2 to her parents house
and thereafter, never came to bring her back to the matrimonial house
and had filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Thereafter, in the meantime, the applicant no.3 withdrew the case filed
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and after withdrawal of the
case, outside the Court the applicant no.3 again made a demand of
Fortuner Car and threatened the respondent no.2. After mentioning the
factum of withdrawal of the case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, it is mentioned in the FIR that when the respondent no.2
came to attend the marriage of her brother-in-law (devar) at the time of
Shiv-ratri in 2023 along with her brother, driver and friend of her
brother, they were not allowed to attend the function and were also
abused by the present applicants and again there was demand of dowry.
Lastly it is stated in the FIR that in June and December 2023, the
respondent no.2 again went to reside in matrimonial house but the
applicants were not allowed to enter in the house and again there was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
8 MCRC-36111-2024
demand of Fortuner Car. Then there is mention of another incident dated
31.07.2024 and according to this date, the applicant no.3 as per the
respondent no.2 manhandled and remaining applicants were instigating
the applicant no.3.
18. The aforesaid allegations if perused, it would reveal that it is
not mentioned in the FIR that on which specific date, time and place the
demand of Fortuner Car was made by the applicant nos.1, 2 and 4. The
individual overt act of the applicant nos.1, 2 and 4 are also not
mentioned in the FIR. The respondent no.2's reply to the application
filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also required to be
taken note of under the circumstances, to find out as to whether the
allegations are genuine or have been levelled with oblique motive to
wreak vengeance. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the reply dated 23.03.2024 to
the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act reveals that
though it is mentioned that the applicant no.3, his parents and family
members wanted dowry however, in paragraph 14 it is mentioned that
when the respondent no.2 in the year 2023 went to her matrimonial
house, she was not allowed to enter in the house by applicant no.3 and
the applicant no.3 said that until and unless she brings the Fortuner Car
she would not be allowed to cohabit with the applicant no.3.
19. Though in paragraph 14 of the reply, it is mentioned that at the
time of marriage, a Fortuner Car was given but whether this mentioning
of Fortuner Car is a typographical error or not, requires scrutiny
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
9 MCRC-36111-2024
inasmuch as, the FIR states that a Scorpio Car was given at the time of
marriage. The reply to the application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was filed on 23.02.2024 and the FIR has been lodged on
03.08.2024. As per the said reply, when last time in the month of
December, 2023, the respondent no.2 went to reside in her matrimonial
house, the applicant no.3 did not allow him to enter in the house while
saying that unless and until, she brings a Fortuner Car, she would not be
allowed to enter in the house.
20. Paragraph 14 of the reply is reproduced herein:-
''यह क आवेदक उसके माता पता एवं प रजन ववाह के समय से ह
दहे ज के लोभी थे तथा उनके ारा सगाई के समय 7 लाख पये नगद
िलये गये थे तथा आवेदक उसके प रजन एवं दोन प के र तेदारो
क मौजूदगी म ितलक के समय 10 लाख पये आवेदक ारा िलया
गया था। ववाह के बाद आवे दका को शोभापुर म रखा गया एवं 4-5
दन से यादा कभी भी आवेदक एवं उसके माता पता ारा नह ं रखने
दया गया उसे यह कहकर मायके भेज दया जाता था क आवेदक
े िनंग कर रहा है इसिलए तुम अपने मायके जाओ, और उसे मायके
भेज दया जाता था। आवे दका को वष 2020 से राजुल पाक के पास
कॉलोनी म नवंबर 2020 से 2 माह रह एवं अंितम मतबा 2023 म
अपने भाई अथात मामा के लड़के ां जल पा डे एवं नरे पटे ल एवं
अं कत पा डे के साथ अपनी ससुराल आवेदक के यहां गई थी। पर तु
आवेदक ारा यह कहकर उसे घर म नह ं घुसने दया गया क जबतक
तुम अपने मायके से फारचूनर कार मायके से मांगकर नह ं लाओगी या
नह ं दलवाओगी तब तक म तु ह नह ं रखूग ं ा ना ह घर म घुसने
दग ंू ा।''
21. Though in paragraph 16 of the same reply, it is alleged that the
family members of the applicant no.3 were also treating respondent no.2
with cruelty under the garb of demand of car only, but there is no
specific details as to which applicants raised the demand of Fortuner Car
and there is also no mention of any date, time and place.
22. The objection which has been taken by counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
10 MCRC-36111-2024
respondents regarding, impermissibility of appreciating any other
documents apart from the charge-sheet is concerned, it would be
profitable to refer to the decision of the the Apex Court in the case
o f Mahmood Ali and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 950.
23. The Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali (supra) has held
in paragraph 13 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
11 MCRC-36111-2024
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."
24. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, leaves
no iota of doubt just in order to read between the lines and to decipher
the veracity of the allegations, the material which has direct nexus with
the merits of the case can be looked into. In the present case, the reply
filed by the respondent no.2 of the application under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act is important more particularly, when there are no
specific allegations against the applicant nos.1, 2 and 4 in the FIR. The
allegations are apparently omnibus and general. The Apex Court in the
series of decisions have taken into consideration the factum of
implication of the family members of the husband on the basis of the
general and omnibus allegations. The Courts are flooded with such
litigations, where all the family members irrespective of their role nexus
with the allegations are roped in and an attempt is made to settle the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
12 MCRC-36111-2024
score on account of matrimonial disputes.
25. The Apex Court in the case of Kahakashan Kausar alias
Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6SCC 599] , 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
13 MCRC-36111-2024
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 Apex Court again in the case of 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
14 MCRC-36111-2024
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 scrutinized with
great care and circumspection."
27. The aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court reveal that the
practice of implicating the husband's relatives was taken note of and the
Apex Court taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect, deprecated
such practice and quashed the proceedings which were based on general
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
15 MCRC-36111-2024
and omnibus allegations.
28. So far as challenge to the proceedings on the ground that they
are counter blast to the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act as well as Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by
applicant no.3 is concerned, it is relevant to take note of the application
filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The application was
filed way back on 05.12.2019. The said application remain pending till
23.04.2024. Reply to the said application under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was filed by respondent no.2 on 23.02.2024 and thereafter,
the application was disposed of on 23.04.2024 as according to
complainant, she had expressed her willingness to cohabit with the
applicant no.3.
29. Thereafter, an application under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was filed by the applicant no.3 on 25.07.2024. The notice
was issued by the Family Court, Jabalpur to respondent no.2 on
02.08.2024. Thereafter, the FIR has been lodged on 03.08.2024 at
around 03:46 PM. The FIR has been lodged while mentioning that on
31.07.2024, when the respondent no.2 went to Shobhapur to reside with
the applicants, she was manhandled by the applicant no.3 and the other
applicants were instigating him. The FIR is conspicuously silent
regarding the respondent no.2 whereabouts between 23.04.2024 till
31.07.2024. There is no explanation regarding this period in the FIR.
Though undisputedly, the Court in exercise of powers conferred under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
16 MCRC-36111-2024
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot conduct mini trial but it is a case where
the respondent no.2's conduct is required to be considered just in order to
ascertain whether proceedings have been instituted with oblique motive
as counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicants.
30. Undisputedly, till filing reply to the application under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, no FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2.
Entire reply to the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act reveals that as to where respondent no.2 stayed after
January 2021 till 2023, when she made an attempt to go to her
matrimonial house. This period of 2 years is also not explained in the
said reply to the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. Therefore, it prima facie indicates that after coming to know about
the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the
report has been lodged by the respondent no.2. The report was lodged
after disposal of the case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. It is also relevant that before lodging of the FIR, a petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the applicant no.3 on
25.07.2024.
31. The Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta Vs. State of
Haryana and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.2379/2024 considered the
aspect of the proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC to be counter blast
to the matrimonial litigation instituted by the husband.
32. The Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta (supra) held in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
17 MCRC-36111-2024
paragraph 19 as under:-
"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."
33. The Apex Court again dealt with the similar issue in Dara
Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. (supra) case and the Apex Court held in
paragraphs 18, 21, 25 and 29 as under:-
"18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the
allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and
omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1
harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated
him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any
specific details or described any particular instance
of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time,
date, place, or manner in which the alleged
harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks
concrete and precise allegations.
21. Given the facts of this case and in view of
the timing and context of the FIR, we find that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
18 MCRC-36111-2024
respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on
03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1
with respect to her interactions with a third person
in their marriage. Later she came back to her
matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial
relationship with appellant No.1. However, she
again left the matrimonial house. When appellant
No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on
13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on
01.02.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are
of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No.
2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory
measure intended to settle scores with appellant No.
1 and his family members.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
19 MCRC-36111-2024
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
20 MCRC-36111-2024
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."
34. The aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court clearly reveal that
the litigations which have been instituted as counter blast to the petition
pertaining to matrimonial dispute are required to be nipped in the
bud and the Court also considered in the aforesaid cases that the husband
therein had filed petition for divorce and thereafter, the FIR was lodged
while taking recourse to retaliatory measure and accordingly, the Apex
Court quashed the proceedings which were instituted against the
husband and his family members.
35. The facts of the present case are also identical. In the present
case also the FIR is lodged almost after 5 years from the date of filing of
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4994
21 MCRC-36111-2024
no.3. The FIR has been lodged after 8 days from the date of filing of
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the applican
no.3. Therefore, prima facie the entire record reveals that the FIR has
been lodged against the applicant no.3 and his family members just in
order to settle score with the applicant no.3 and his entire family. It is a
case where, in order to take recourse to vengeance, the report has been
lodged by the respondent no.2 who even otherwise was sitting tight over
the matter for prolong period of 3 to 5 years.
36. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, reliance on
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Supriya Jain (Supra) and
other decisions is misplaced and is of no assistance to respondent No.2.
37. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the
considered view that the entire proceedings initiated against the
applicants deserve to be quashed.
38. Resultantly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands
allowed. The FIR registered vide Crime No.40/2024 at Police Station
Mahila Thana, Jabalpur and ensued proceedings stand quashed. The
applicants are discharged from the aforesaid charges. Bail bonds and
Surety bonds, if any, furnished by the applicants also stand discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
