Ramdayal Patidar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Ramdayal Patidar & Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 40330 of 2022 (Indore); Decided on 20.7.2024

Advocates:
Akash Sharma for petitioners; Mukesh Sharma, Government Advocate for respondent No. 1/State; Ms. Nupur Garg for respondent No. 2.

Headnote:
Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 482 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 498A, 323 and 506/34 -- quashing of FIR -- applicants are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No. 2/complainant -- marriage was solemnized on 30.11.2020 -- husband died on 7.7.2021 -- FIR was not lodged when husband was alive but only on 29.3.2022, and cause of action is stated to be from 5.12.2020 to 29.3.2022 -- property dispute already going on -- prior to lodging of FIR, complainant filed complaints to various authorities regarding mutation of land in name of husband by applicants -- complaint had no reference of any harassment regarding dowry and was confined only to property -- allegations against applicants in FIR appear afterthought -- no material on record to support contention of complainant that she was assaulted by applicants -- she has stated in MLC that she has no such injury which requires MLC -- documents filed in application by applicants remained unrebutted -- continuation of criminal proceedings would be sheer misuse of process of Court -- FIR quashed. 2024 SCC Online SC 759, 2023 SCC Online SC 1083 and (2008) 14 SCC 1 followed. [Paras 10 to 12, 15 & 16]
naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 498d 323 rFkk 506@34 & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk vfHk[kaMu & vkosndx.k çR;fFkZuh Øekad 2 ifjokfnuh ds llqj] lkl vkSj uun gSa & fookg 30-11-2020 dks vuq"Bkfir gqvk Fkk & ifr dh e`R;q 7-7-2021 dks gqbZ & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ rc nkf[ky ugha dh xbZ tc ifr thfor Fkk] cfYd 29-3-2022 dks nkf[ky dh xbZ] rFkk okn gsrqd 5-12-2020 ls 29-3-2022 rd gksuk dfFkr gS & laifÙk dk fookn igys ls py jgk gS & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky gksus ds iwoZ] ifjokfnuh us ifr ds uke dh Hkwfe dk vkosndx.k }kjk ukekarj.k djk, tkus ds laca/k esa fofHkUu çkf/kdkfj;ksa dks f'kdk;rsa dh & f'kdk;r esa ngst ds laca/k esa rax fd, tkus dk dksbZ funsZ'k ugha Fkk rFkk og laifÙk rd gh lhfer Fkh & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vkosndx.k ds fo:) vfHkdFku mÙkjfpafrr çrhr gksrs gSa & ifjokfnuh ds bl ladFku ds leFkZu ds fy, vfHkys[k ij dksbZ lkexzh ugha fd ml ij vkosndx.k }kjk geyk fd;k x;k Fkk & mlus ,e,ylh esa dgk fd mls ,slh dksbZ {kfr ugha ftldk ,e,ylh vko';d gks & vkosndx.k }kjk vkosnu esa çLrqr nLrkost v[kafMr jgs & nkafMd dk;Zokgh pyrs jgus ls U;k;ky; dh çfØ;k dk furkar nq:i;ksx gksxk & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMrA 2024 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 759] 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1083 rFkk ¼2008½ 14 ,llhlh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10 ls 12] 15 ,oa 16½

ORDER

1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,1973, for quashing the First Information Report lodged at Crime No.33/2022, at police Station Neemuch Mahila police station, District-Neemuch for offence under sections 498-A, 323, 506/34 of the IPC, as also for quashing the entire consequential criminal proceedings.

2. The petitioners herein, are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.2/Pooja Patidar, who has lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging demand of dowry and harassment by the petitioners.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the respondent No.2 was solemnized with the petitioners’ No.1 & 2’s son- Dr.Deepesh Patidar on 30.11.2020. Unfortunately, Dr. Deepesh Patidar, the husband of the respondent No.2, passed away on account of heart failure on 7.7.2021, and thereafter, as alleged, the present petitioners started harassing the respondent No.2 for dowry, and have also threatened her of dire consequences if she does not bring Rs.5 Lacs.

4. Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners No.1 & 2 are the old, aged parents of the deceased husband of the respondent No.2; whereas the respondent No.3-Chitra Patidar is the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 and is presently pursuing her M.D. from Indus Medical College, Indore.

5. It is further submitted that the reason for lodging the aforesaid FIR is the property dispute between the parties, as the deceased has left behind certain ancestral property, which has led to the aforesaid dispute. Counsel has also drawn the attention to this Court to a complaint dated 15.6.2022, made by the respondent No.2 to the various officers of the State, including the Inspector General of Police/Dy. Inspector General of Police and the Collector, Ujjain stating that the petitioners are bent upon to deprive the respondent No.2 of her legal rights to claim the property in the name of her husband. Counsel has submitted that there is no reference of any allegation of dowry in the aforesaid complaint.

6. It is also submitted that after the death of the petitioners’ No.1 & 2 only son, there was no occasions for them to demand dowry from his widow. It is further submitted that otherwise, the respondent No.2 was already married to one Shreeram s/o Jagannath Patidar on 14.5.2015, and without taking divorce from him she has started to reside with the present petitioners’ No. 1 & 2 son -Dr.Deepesh Patidar, as his wife. Thus, the respondent No.2 is also not entitled to claim any benefit from the properties of the son of the petitioners No.1 & 2.

7. Ms. Nupur Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/ the objector, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. It is submitted that when the respondent No.2’s marriage was solemnized with the son of the petitioners No.1 & 2, they were also present in the said marriage, and no objection was ever raised by them in respect of the respondent No.2’s earlier marriage. It is also submitted that that the validity of the marriage of the respondent No.2 is not an issue before this Court and the respondent No.2 has made clear allegations in the FIR regarding the demand of dowry. Thus, it is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

8. Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State has also opposed the prayer.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the record.

10. From the record, it is found that the marriage of the complainant /respondent No.2/Pooja Patidar was solemnized with Dr. Deepesh Patidar on 30.11.2020, and according to her, she was harassed by the petitioners regarding dowry, who used to demand Rs.5 Lacs from her. In the FIR, she has not alleged anything against her late husband Dr. Deepesh Patidar, who has already died on 7.7.2021. Thus, the FIR was not lodged when her husband w