Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 361
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Ravikant And Others - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Radhika Kuderiya And Another - Respondents
M.CR.C. No. 10332 of 2019
Decided On : 20-05-2020
Shri Anoop Kumar Saxena, Learned Counsel, for the Appellants; Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Learned Counsel, for the Respondent No. 1; Shri Gulab Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent No.2-State
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to determine the validity of allegations in a matrimonial dispute and the invocation of inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings as an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
498-A - Matrimonial Dispute - Indian Penal Code - Section 498-A, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also referred to various legal principles established by the Supreme Court in cases such as Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley, Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar, Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab, Preeti Gupta & anothers Vs. State of Jharkhand, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's marriage involved allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, and humiliation by the accused/petitioners. The accused/petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC. The accused/petitioners claimed that they were falsely implicated and that the complainant committed cruelty against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's allegations of cruelty against accused/petitioner No.1 warranted investigation during the trial. The court dismissed the petition with regard to accused/petitioner No.1 but allowed it with regard to accused/petitioners No. 2 to 5, quashing the proceedings against them as an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, and humiliation by the accused/petitioners, as well as the complainant's refusal to live with accused/petitioner No.1 and the subsequent legal proceedings initiated by both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles established by the Supreme Court in various cases to determine the validity of the allegations and the invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The court considered uncontroverted documents and the nature of the allegations to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with regard to accused/petitioner No.1, and the proceedings against accused/petitioners No. 2 to 5 were quashed as an abuse of process of law.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused/petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short ''the Code'') against the order dated 1.12.2018, passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, District Chhatarpur (MP), in Criminal Revision No.01/2018, whereby learned Judge affirmed the order dated 18.12.2017, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badamalahra, District Chhatarpur (MP), in Criminal Case No.523/2017, in which learned JMFC took cognizance against the accused/petitioners under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short).
2. Briefly stated facts of the case, before the trial Court, are that the marriage of complainant/respondent No.1 was solemnized with accused/petitioner No.1 on 26.4.2014. Accused/petitioner No.2 is father-in-law and accused/petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law, accused/ petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law and accused/ petitioner No.5 is brother-in-law of complainant/ respondent No.1. At the time of marriage, accused/petitioners demanded Rs.5 lacs and one Bollero Jeep as dowry. The parents of complainant/respondent No.1 gave Rs.5 lacs and Bollero Jeep as well as other articles of gold and valuable property to the accused/petitioners at the time of marriage. After the marriage, complainant/respondent No.1 went with accused/petitioners at matrimonial home peacefully. Thereafter, accused/petitioners snatched ornaments from her and they tortured and humiliated her. They used to tell her that they want a beautiful wife or daughter-in-law. Complainant/respondent No.1 became pregnant. Accused/ petitioners did not provide proper medical treatment, therefore, she underwent abortion. After some time, accused/ petitioners again pressurised her for pregnancy, but they told her that accused/petitioner No.4 is issueless, so complainant/respondent No.1 delivered a child. Complainant/respondent No.1 was very weak at that time, but she was pressurised for pregnancy by accused/ petitioners. She again became pregnant, but accused/ petitioners did not provide proper medical treatment to her. Thereafter, her father gave her him Rs.1 lakh so that accused/ petitioners may provide proper medical treatment. Thereafter, she delivered a male child on 13.6.2016. Thereafter, accused/ petitioners pressurised to give her child to her sister-in-law, accused/petitioner No.4, but complainant/respondent No.1 refused to accept this proposal, then accused/petitioners humiliated and tortured her. Thereafter, complainant/respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home and she is residing at her father's home since 1.6.2017, but accused/petitioners went to snatch her child. Accused/petitioner N.1 initiated a proceeding at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur. She appeared before Parivar Paramarsh Kendra, Chhatarpur, but accused/petitioners did not sign the proceeding and proceeding was dismissed. Complainant/respondent No.1 lodged a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, on 29.8.2017 and 25.9.2017, but they did not initiate any proceeding against the accused/petitioners. Thereafter, she filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badamalahra, District Chhatarpur. Learned JMFC enquired into the matter and took the statements of complainant/respondent No.1 and other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code and took cognizance under Section 498-A of IPC against the accused/petitioners. Accused/petitioners filed a Criminal Revision against this order before I Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar, learned I ASJ Bijawar, dismissed the said revision, then they filed this Misc. Criminal Case.
3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits that accused/petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused/petitioners No.2 to 5 are residing separately from accused/petitioner No.1 and they have no nexus with day-to-day family affairs of accused/petitioner No.1. Learned Court below without appreciating the above fact took cognizance against the accuse
