Rajasthan High Court

Sudhakar Bahad S/O Late Shri Vijay ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 March, 2022

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5415/2021

1.     Sudhakar Bahad S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma,
       Resident Of 179, Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner.
2.     Smt. Savitri Sharma W/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma,
       Resident Of 179, Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner.
3.     Deebakar Sharma S/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma,
       Resident Of 179, Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner.
4.     Monika Sharma W/o Shri Deebakar Sharma, Resident Of
       179, Karni Nagar, Lalgarh, Bikaner.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor.
2.     Smt. Saleeni Sharma Wife Of Shri Sudhakar Bahad,
       Resident Of 71, Gorav Nagar, Civil Lines, Sodala, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Gaurav Singh
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP.
                               Mr. Sangram Singh Solanki

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

Judgment reserved on : 24/03/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022

1. By way of this criminal miscellaneous petition, petitioners want

to quash FIR bearing No.89/2021 registered at Police Station

Mahila Thana, Jaipur (South) for the offence punishable under

Section 498A and 406 IPC.

2. Brief facts of FIR are as under:- Respondent No.2 had lodged

present FIR at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur (South) in which

(2 of 8) [CRLMP-5415/2021]

she stated that marriage was solemnized on 19.02.2011 at Bundi

with petitioner No.1. After marriage, she had gone to Bikaner,

where petitioner as well as relatives of the petitioner mainly

brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law used to torture for

want of dowry but due to education and social phenomena, she

did not lodged any complaint. She wanted to save her matrimonial

life. She wants to fulfill her marital obligation but petitioners and

their family members used to torture her physically and mentally.

Petitioner No.1 had filed divorce petition on 29.04.2014. Endeavor

of the respondent to save matrimonial life, respondent was thrown

out of house on 25.11.2013 and they had taken her dowry article

and had not returned till today.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present FIR

was lodged after a delay of more than seven years with mala fide

intention. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that

allegation levelled in the FIR are omnibus in nature. Learned

counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent No.2

had left matrimonial home without any cause on 31.12.2011 and

had not fulfilled her matrimonial obligations. After that, petitioner

No.1 had filed divorce petition on 29.04.2014 on the ground of

desertion. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that

divorce petition was on the verge of deciding at that time,

respondent No.2 had lodged the present FIR. Learned counsel for

the petitioners also submits that respondent had not alleged a

single word regarding demand of dowry in her reply of divorce

petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that

respondent No.2 has not uttered a single word regarding demand

of dowry in her petition under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act as

(3 of 8) [CRLMP-5415/2021]

well as petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that respondent No.2 had not given any

evidence regarding demand of dowry in her statement before the

Family Court in divorce proceedings. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that respondent No.2 has changed her version

with each new legal proceedings and created new versions in

contradiction of her earlier version. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also submits that respondent No.2 wants to harass and

humiliate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner

No.1 had filed divorce petition on 29.04.2014. After that, present

FIR was filed in the year of 2021. Cognizance of the alleged

offence cannot be taken because more than seven years has been

lapsed. So, petition filed by the petitioners be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon

the judgments of Apex Court passed in State of Punjab Vs.

Sarvan Singh; Criminal Appeal No.60 of 1981, decided on

02.04.1981, Arun Vyas and Ors. Vs. Anita Vyas; Criminal

Appeal No.574 of 1999, decided on 14.05.1999, Kishan Singh

(D) through Lrs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and Ors.; Criminal Appeal

No.1500 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5440 of

2009) decided on 12.08.2010 and the judgment passed by

Calcutta High Court passed in Dinabandhu Banerjee Vs.

Nandini Mukherjee; Criminal Revision No.2502 of 1992,

decided on 15.06.1993.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Public

Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after the

(4 of 8) [CRLMP-5415/2021]

investigation, Investigating Officer had found the offence under

Section 498A and 406 IPC proved against the petitioner No.1.

Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioner

No.1 in his statement before the Family Court admitted that he

had dowry article with him. So, offence under Section 406 IPC is

proved by the statement of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for

the respondent also submitted that offence under Section 498A is

continuing offence. So provision of limitation does not apply on

these offences. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted

that averment made in the FIR, prima facie, disclosed commission

of an offence. So, at this stage proceedings under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and

learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Apex Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs.

State of U.P. & Anr., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:-

"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but

(5 of 8) [CRLMP-5415/2021]

also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."

9. Apex Court, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh

Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273,

it was also observed:-

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand- mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."

10. Apex Court in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand &

Anr. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The

(6 of 8) [CRLMP-5415/2021]

members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized 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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 complaint are required to be scrutinized 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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful."

11. Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.,

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 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:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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

(7 of 8) [CRLMP-5415/2021]

proportions resulting in 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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 this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

12. Recently, Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. The State of

Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed

that:-

"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."

13. The above mentioned decisions of Apex Court clearly

discloses that misuse of Section 498A IPC and increased tendency

of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,

without analyzing the long term ramifications of trial on the

complainant as well as the accused. It is also observed that false

implication by way of general omnibus allegation made in the

course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in

misuse of process of law.

14. It is admitted position in this matter that the marriage was

solemnized between the respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 on

19.02.2011 and it is also admitted position that petitioner No.1

had filed the divorce petition on 29.04.2014. Respondent No.2 in