The pendency of a civil proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding, and the trial judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by JMFC, Seondha District Datia in Criminal Case No. 4/2021, by which the charges under Sections 498-A, 294, 323/34, 506 (Part-II) of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that respondent No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of son of the applicants No. 1 and 2. She lodged a FIR on 02.11.2020 on the allegations that she got married to Aditya Devda on 17.04.2019 and at present she is residing in Datia. Her father had given cash, household articles, silver and gold ornaments as per his financial condition. After the marriage when she went to her matrimonial house for the second time, then the applicants as well as her husband Aditya Devda started demanding four wheeler vehicle and also started harassing her. Even during the pregnancy of the complainant/respondent No. 2, the applicant No. 2 used to pressurize her to work fast and when it was replied by the respondent No. 2 that on account of pregnancy, she cannot work fast, then the applicant No. 2 used to harass her mentally. After some time, she came back to her parental home at Datia and informed the entire incident to her parents and siblings. When the parents of the respondent No. 2 requested the applicants and her husband to come to Datia in order to resolve dispute, then the husband of the respondent No. 2 and the applicant No. 2 came to her parental home. When her parents were trying to convince her husband and applicant No. 2, then her husband got annoyed and assaulted her. After great persuasion by the parents of the respondent No. 2, she was taken to her matrimonial house and was kept properly for few days, but again thereafter all the four persons, i.e., the applicants and her husband demanded dowry and also started beating her. They used to abuse her filthly and they were also alleging that the respondent No. 2 is a characterless person. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 informed the entire incident to her father. Thereafter, she came back to her parental home along with her father. On 27.06.2020 at about 01:30 in the night, the applicants No. 1 and 2 as well as her husband came to her parental home and said that they have come to take her back. When the respondent No. 2 came out of the house, then her husband as well as the applicants No. 1 and 2 started assaulting her and also instructed that she should come along with four wheeler vehicle, otherwise they will not allow her to enter inside the matrimonial house.

3. It is submitted that in fact, the FIR has been lodged by way of counterblast. The husband of the respondent No. 2 namely Aditya sent a registered notice dated 17.08.2020 asking her for divorce otherwise it was also mentioned that in case, if the respondent No. 2 does not agree for divorce by mutual consent, then husband of respondent No. 2 would file a petition for divorce. It is further submitted that accordingly on 09.10.2020 divorce petition has been filed by the husband of the respondent No. 2. Notices were issued by order dated 10.11.2020 and only after receiving notice, the FIR in question has been lodged on 02.11.2020. Thus, it is clear that the FIR in question is bad in law as it has been lodged by way of counterblast. It is further submitted that the applicant No. 3 is residing in Indore and she is a spinster and is practicing as Dentist at Indore. She has nothing to do with the family affairs of the respondent No. 2 and her husband Aditya. It is further submitted that it is well established that the tendency to falsely implicate near and dear relatives of the husband is increasing day by day and near and dear relative of the husband should not be prosecuted unless and until there are specific allegations against them. In support of the contention, counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by coordinate Bench