Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Kasturi Devi & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. And Another - Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26941 of 2020
Decided On : 29-09-2020
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act - 498-A, 3/4 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in the context of the allegations of demanding a FDR of Rs.5.00 lacs in the name of a baby girl. The court referred to various judgments to interpret the definition of dowry and cruelty, emphasizing that a demand for money for domestic expenses may not constitute dowry, but a demand for an FDR in connection with a marriage would fall within the purview of unlawful demand under Section 498-A of IPC. The court also addressed the jurisdictional issue, holding that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home due to non-fulfillment of unlawful demands amounts to cruelty, and the police station had jurisdiction to investigate the offense. The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and interference should be limited to exceptional cases.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent lodged a FIR alleging harassment and cruelty by the applicants, including demands for dowry and an FDR in connection with the birth of a girl child. The applicants challenged the FIR on grounds of alibi, malafides, and lack of jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the contentions of alibi and malafides, emphasizing that the defense of plea of alibi must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the pendency of a civil proceeding cannot end a criminal proceeding. The court also held that the FIR was not barred by time and that the police station had jurisdiction to investigate the offense.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the plea of alibi, malafides, and jurisdictional concerns.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a demand for an FDR in connection with a marriage falls within the purview of unlawful demand under Section 498-A of IPC. The court also held that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home due to non-fulfillment of unlawful demands amounts to cruelty, and the police station had jurisdiction to investigate the offense. The court highlighted the need for sparing exercise of power under Section 482 and limited interference to exceptional cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for quashing the FIR, holding that the FIR disclosed cognizable offenses and the police authorities were obligated to register the FIR.
JUDGMENT
G S Ahluwalia, J. - Heard through Video Conferencing.
2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 261/2020 registered by Police Station Kotwali Datia District Datia for offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Undisputed facts are that the applicant No. 1 is the mother-in-law, No. 2 is the father-in-law, No. 3 is the husband and No. 4 is the younger brother-in-law (Devar) of the complainant.
4. The respondent No. 2/complainant lodged a FIR on 01.06.2020 alleging that she got married to the applicant No. 3 on 14.02.2016 in Lucknow. Her father had given a cash of Rs.5.00 lacs along with other household articles and gold ornaments. For two years after the marriage, her in-laws treated her properly but thereafter started harassing her for bringing less dowry and started abusing as well as beating her. After she conceived, she was left in her parental home where She gave birth to a girl baby child in District Hospital, Datia. After 3-4 months of birth of her child, the applicants No. 2 and 3 took her to Lucknow, but again the applicants started harassing her and treating her with cruelty by alleging that on one hand, she has not brought any dowry and now she has given birth to a girl child and started passing taunts that now who will bear the expenses of her education and marriage and, accordingly, they instructed the complainant to ask her parents to prepare a FDR in the name of child for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs. On 14.03.2019 the applicants No. 2 and 3 left her and her child in her parental home and from thereafter, the complainant is residing in her parental home. Her father and her relatives tried to convince her in-laws, but they did not mould their conduct and insisted that unless and until a FDR of Rs.5.00 lacs is prepared in the name of baby girl, they would not allow her to live with them.
5. Challenging the FIR lodged by the complainant, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that it is incorrect to say that the applicant No. 2 had come to Datia for leaving the complainant in her parental home because on the said date, he was on duty. The applicants have also filed a copy of the daily attendance sheet as Annexure P-2. It is further submitted that since the applicant No. 3 has filed a petition for grant of divorce and only after receiving the notice of the same, the FIR has been lodged, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that since the allegations are that the applicants have demanded a FDR of Rs.5.00 lacs in the name of baby girl, therefore, it cannot be said that the said demand was made in connection with marriage and thus, no prima facie case is made out for prosecuting the applicants. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the allegations which have been made against the applicants are false and the FIR has been lodged belatedly because according to the complainant herself, she was left in her parental home on 14.03.2019 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 01.06.2020. It is further submitted that since a major part of the allegations took place at Lucknow, therefore, the Police Station Kotwali Datia District Datia has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants.
7. So far as the question of plea of alibi of the applicant No. 2 is concerned, although the applicants have relied upon the attendance sheet to show that the applicant No. 2 was on duty on 14.03.2019 but in absence of any formal proof of this document, this Court cannot rely upon the same for the purposes of the quashment of the FIR. It is well established principle of law that the defence of plea of alibi has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 , this Court cannot look into the defence of the suspects / accused for the quashmen
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
