Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Ram Baran - Applicant
Versus
State of M.P. and ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4708 of 2014
Decided On : 12-01-2017
For the Applicant :Shri H.K. Shukla, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Panel Lawyer.
Continuous mental cruelty alleged after 2007 can affect the limitation period for filing an FIR under Section 498-A of IPC. Withdrawn statements in other proceedings may not affect the validity of an FIR.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - IPC 498-A - [Section 498-A of IPC] - The court discussed the limitation period for filing an FIR under Section 498-A of IPC, considering the continuous mental cruelty alleged by the respondent after 2007. The court also referred to previous judgments to establish that forcing a married woman to leave her matrimonial house due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands amounts to cruelty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR registered for offense under Section 498-A of IPC. The respondent alleged cruelty and demand of dowry by the petitioner, leading to her residing at her father's house and subsequently filing the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was not barred by limitation as the continuous mental cruelty alleged by the respondent after 2007 was considered. The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument based on the respondent's withdrawn statement in the divorce petition.
Issues: The issues involved the limitation period for filing the FIR under Section 498-A of IPC and the relevance of the respondent's withdrawn statement in the divorce petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuous mental cruelty alleged after 2007 meant that the FIR was not barred by limitation. The court also ruled that the withdrawn statement in the divorce petition did not affect the validity of the FIR.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the FIR under Section 498-A of IPC.
Mr. G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.306/2014 registered by Police Station-Hazira, District-Gwalior for offence under Section 498- A of IPC and the charge-sheet filed on the basis of the said FIR.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this case are that the applicant was married to respondent no.2 on 06/05/2002 as per Hindu Rights and Rituals. A female child namely Astha was born out of the wedlock.
3. A FIR was lodged on 06/05/2014 by respondent no.2 alleging that she was married to the applicant on 06th May, 2002. Till the year 2007, her husband was treating her with cruelty and he used to beat her for demand of dowry as a result of which, she was not in a position to live peacefully. The baby child, who was born out of the wedlock, is now aged about 9 years. In the year 2013, her husband had filed an application for grant of divorce. As her husband had forced her, therefore, now she is residing in her father's house. After coming back to her parents' house, she narrated the entire incident to her father that her husband is constantly causing mental torture to her. On this FIR, the police registered the case for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the respondent no.2 had filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent and in those proceedings, her statement was recorded. In divorce proceedings, respondent no.2 had stated that she is residing separately from the applicant from the year 2007 and Kumari Astha who is aged about 8 years would continue to reside with respondent no.2. However, subsequently, she withdrew her consent for divorce by mutual consent and lodged the FIR. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in view of the specific admission made by respondent no.2 in divorce petition to the effect that she is residing separately from the applicant from the year 2007 and since the FIR was lodged in the year 2014, it would be clear that the FIR is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that the admission of respondent no.2 that she is residing separately would clearly mean that no cruelty was done by the applicant after 2007 and, therefore, the period of limitation would be three years from the year 2007.
5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent no.1/State submitted that it is apparent from the statements of the witnesses that even after 2007, the applicant is causing mental cruelty to the respondent no.2 continuously. Thus, it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. From the documents produced by the applicant along with this petition, it is clear that a petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent was filed on 22/08/2013. The statement of the applicant as well as respondent no.2 was recorded on 22/08/2013 itself. On 05/05/2014, the respondent no.2 withdrew her consent and accordingly, the petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent was dismissed.
8. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that while deciding this petition under Section 482 of CrPC, the statement made by the respondent in the divorce petition can be read, is misconceived and cannot be accepted. Any statement made by a witness in other proceeding may be relevant fact but in view of the fact that she subsequently withdrew her consent for grant of divorce by mutual consent would mean that any statement made by her in the divorce petition has also lost its effect. Thus, by reading these statement of the respondent no.2 (which was subsequently withdrawn by her) in the divorce petition, it cannot be held that the FIR lodged by respondent no.2 on 06/05/2014 is barred by limitation.
9. From the case-diary statement of the witnesses as well as from the FIR, it is apparent that the witnesses have specifically stated that even after 2007, the applicant, by visiting the house of the father of
