SHORT NOTE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
D.K. Paliwal, J.
Kallu Khan and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
State of M.P. and Anr. —Respondents
Misc. Cri Case No. 9992 of 2012
Decided on : 1.8.2013

IMPORTANT POINT
If allegations in FIR showed that complainant was being harassed of and in connection with demand of dowry, silence of complaint for 9 years would suggest that allegations were absurd and improbable.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Petition for quashing criminal case under Sections 498A, 506, 327 IPC and under Section 3and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act—Marriage had taken place in 2003 and FIR was lodged in 2012 and police filed charge-sheet against petitioners husband and parents in laws—Omnibus allegations of demand of dowry made in FIR—Silence for 9 years, when at no stage complaint or report was given showed that allegations were absurd and no reasonable man would accept the same—Allegations appeared to be inherently improbable, absurd and malicious—Proceedings were liable to be quashed.

       Held: The application filed by Kallu Khan to SHO, PS Aron, reveals that Kallu Khan has stated that he was separated his son vide agreement dated 29.7.211, this application has been submitted on 5.8.2010. Imran Khan has submitted an application before SP Guna alleging that his wife is threatening him to implicate in dowry case. It appears that on 25.7.2012, respondent has filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth and two sister-in-law alleging that she is being mentally harassed because she could not deliver the child.

       It is pertinent to mention here that in the report lodged at Police Station, Kotwali 18.9.2012, it is mentioned that on 22.7.2012, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband beaten her and left her to parental house at Guna, however, report of the incident was not lodged on 22.7.2011 and no reason has been mentioned why report of the incident which took place on 22.7.2012 was not lodged.

       As per the allegations in the FIR lodged by the respondent complainant on 18.9.2012, it appears that soon after her marriage, her husband and in-laws used to demand Rs.1,00,000 and when she told that her father is poor and he cannot fulfill the demand, she was beaten and harassed by her husband and in-laws.

       There is no whisper why respondent complainant remained mum till filing of the report dated 8.9.2012. Had really there been some truth in the allegation, atleast some complaint would have been called off, but about 9 years have passed and nowhere any complaint has been lodged by the respondent complainant regarding the demand of dowry and harassment by the husband in-laws.

       From the perusal of the report as well as the statement of respondent complainant and her father, mother and brother Farid Khan and Iqbal recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, it appears that omnibus allegation of demand of dowry has been made but no specific month, date and time is mentioned. Though it is not a stage for finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegation but looking to the allegation that after marriage respondent complainant was being harassed for and in connection with the demand of dowry, the silence of respondent complainant for about 9 years, shows that allegations is so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same.

       In the instant case, as discussed above, it is apparent that the allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and beating made against the petitioners appears to be inherently improbable, absurd and malicious, it appears that allegations have been levelled with a view to harass the petitioners.

       For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of the criminal trial against the petitioners would be sheer abuse of process of law.

       Result: Petition allowed.