Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 162
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Amit Kumar Pandey And Another - Appellants
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh and Another. - Respondent
M.Cr.C. No. 24954 of 2019
Decided On : 08-01-2020
Shri Chandrahas Dubey, Advocate, for the Appellants; Shri Rangdev Singh, P.L, for the Respondent No. 1-State
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in exercising the power of arrest in matrimonial disputes and the tendency to involve all family members in such disputes, as well as the importance of investigating the facts at the trial.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Matrimonial Dispute - Section 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the need for caution in exercising the power of arrest and the tendency to involve all family members in matrimonial disputes. The court also referred to the legal principles established in various cases related to matrimonial disputes and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a matrimonial dispute where the respondent alleged demand of dowry and act of cruelty against the petitioner-accused. Both parties made allegations of torture and humiliation against each other. The court found that the facts needed to be investigated at the trial and dismissed the petition in regard to petitioner-accused No. 1 but allowed it in regard to petitioner-accused No. 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case involved a matrimonial dispute and emphasized the need for investigation of the facts at the trial. It dismissed the petition in regard to petitioner-accused No. 1 but allowed it in regard to petitioner-accused No. 2, quashing the criminal proceeding against the latter.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of demand of dowry, act of cruelty, torture, and humiliation in a matrimonial dispute. The court also considered the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for caution in exercising the power of arrest in cases of matrimonial disputes and referred to legal principles established in various cases related to such disputes. It also highlighted the tendency to involve all family members in matrimonial litigation and the need to investigate the facts at the trial.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed in regard to petitioner-accused No. 1 but allowed in regard to petitioner-accused No. 2, quashing the criminal proceeding against the latter.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners- accused have filed this M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceeding of criminal case no. 351/2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in connection with crime No. 28/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 294, 506 read with 34 and section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that marriage of respondent no. 2 was solemnized with petitioner-accused No. 1 on 29.05.2013. Petitioner-accused no. 2 is father-in-law of respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 submitted written report on 07.03.2019 before Police Station Mahila Thana Satna. It is mentioned in this report that petitioner-accused No. 1 is posted as Cashier Gramin Bank Satna. They are residing at Satna since 24.04.2014. They blessed one girl, her father-in-law petitioner no. 2 was also came there. Petitioners-accused demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry. They abused filthy language. They tortured and humiliated her. They told her that petitioneraccused no. 1 will solemnize another marriage because respondent no.2 is not beautiful and mentally retarded then she telephoned. Her parent was agreed to give Rs. 4,00,000/- but petitioners-accused were not ready for that. She was sent her parental house on 20.12.2018. On 14.01.2019 she reached in the office of the petitioner-accused no. 1 where petitioneraccused no.1 abused filthy language, he pushed her so she returned to her parental house, thereafter on 06.03 2019 she again reached in the house of petitioners-accused at Satna. Petitioners-accused met her, they again demanded dowry, abused filthy language, threatened her, so she is living in her parental house. FIR was registered, statements of witnesses have been recorded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused submits that respondent no. 2 is very adamant in nature. She never takes care of any household responsibilities and since marriage respondent no. 2 wanted to live separate from her in-laws and settle in separate house in Jabalpur city. But the present petitioner-accused no. 1 being a government employee he was posted in Gramin Bank in Village- Bamorekala, District Shivpuri. He wanted to live with the respondent no. 2 at Village Bamorekala but respondent no. 2 and her family members clearly refused the same and they had put into the minds of the respondent no. 2 that she will reside with the present petitioner-accused No. 1 only if he agrees to live in a separate house in the Jabalpur City and not in any villages. In the month of December 2013 petitioner No. 1 got transferred from Village Bamorekala District Shivpur to Satna. Respondent no. 2 again refused to go to Satna with petitioner no. 1 and she went to for her parental house at Bamhnoda Panager, District Jabalpur. Petitioner no. 1 rented a house in Satna and tried to bring back respondent no. 2 to live together at Satna, but respondent no. 2 and her parents did not agree for the same, but anyhow the petitioner no. 1 succeeded to take back his wife and started living with her at Satna. On 17.09.2014 daughter namely Aradhya Pandey was born from the wedlock of petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and since birth of their daughter the respondent no. 2 started living with her parents, therefore, petitioner no. 1 and his relatives have visited multiple times to in-laws house to bring back to the respondent no. 2 but respondent no. 2 and his parents and other family members insulted the petitioner no. 1 and his relatives. Finally respondent no. 2 agreed to return back Satna on the condition that parents of the petitioner no. 1 will never visited the place where petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are residing. The parents of petitioner-accused no. 1 living in Jabalpur and they are not allowed to visit the resident where the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are living. Respondent no. 2 regularly threatens to the petitioner no. 1 that she would commit suicide if the parents of petitioner no. 1 visit the h
