Quashing of FIR and Criminal Case - Sec.498 A, 506 I.P.C. - Love marriage -when earlier complaint was closed as civil disputes pending, no criminal case be registered on the same set of facts by adding criminal intimidation - living separately since April,2011- Restitution conjugal right filed - Pending a complaint in mahila Police station - complaint closed due to compromise - Restitution of conjugal rights also withdrawn - but a case under sec.498A,506 I.P.C.-High court refused to quash Apex court held that when the ealier complaint was closed as civil disputes pending It has to be seen that admittedly the second respondent has been living separately since April, 2011. Thereafter, she had lodged a complaint on 07.09.2011 before the very same police station. The same was duly enquired into and it was closed stating that the dispute is actually between the families which are to be otherwise settled in legal proceedings. If there are such differences between families which are to be settled in legal proceedings, how such differences would constitute and give rise to a successful prosecution under Sections 498A or 506 IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is the crucial question. The second respondent has been living separately since April, 2011 and hence, there is no question of any beating by the appellants as alleged by her. The relationship having got strained ever since April, 2011, even application for restitution of conjugal rights having been withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the second respondent was not interested to live together, it is difficult to believe that there is still a demand for dowry on 30.04.2012 coupled with criminal intimidation. The allegations are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and the time of the incident. - allowed the appeal and quashed the case =
High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing the proceedings and charges
framed against the appellants under Section 498A, 506 Part II of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants 2 and 3
are his father and mother respectively. The Respondent No. 2 is the
wife of the first appellant.=
It is seen from Annexure-P3-application filed by the
first appellant on 14.07.2011 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights that the second
respondent had left the matrimonial house on 23.04.2011 and thereafter
she had not gone back. On 23.05.2011, a lawyer notice had also been
served on the second respondent which was replied on 02.06.2011.
During the pendency of the proceedings for restitution of conjugal
rights, the second respondent, on 07.09.2011, lodged a complaint
before Mahila Thana, Indore Police Station raising allegations against
the appellants, the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and the sister of
the first appellant.=
Annexure-P5 is the Record of Proceedings dated 12.12.2011 when parties
were called before Mahila Police Station. The same is extracted below:
“Sir,
In connection with enquiry of reference application both the parties
appeared in women police station and statement of both were recorded
which are enclosed with enquiry. Applicant told that her husband
Swapnil does not do any work/business and other members of in-laws
house by putting demand of dowry cause physical and mental harassment.
Let family counseling be done with husband so that domestic life may
remain peaceful.
Non applicant told in his statement that my domestic life could not
run peacefully due to intervention of members of parental house of
Kirti.
Family counseling of both parties was done. There are certain family
differences between both the parties hence both the parties were
suggested to rehabilitate their domestic life by court proceeding.
Report is submitted in your goodself.”
4. The first appellant on 16.04.2012 withdrew the application filed under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, since according to the
first appellant the second respondent was not inclined to resume
cohabitation. =
The first appellant and second respondent had in fact solemnized their
marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir on 16.06.2007 privately, as they were
stated to be in love with each other for sometime.
Thereafter only, in
the presence of the family members, marriage was solemnized on
24.06.2009.
10. It has to be seen that admittedly the second respondent has been
living separately since April, 2011.
Thereafter, she had lodged a
complaint on 07.09.2011 before the very same police station.
The same
was duly enquired into and it was closed stating that the dispute is
actually between the families which are to be otherwise settled in
legal proceedings.
If there are such differences between families
which are to be settled in legal proceedings, how such differences
would constitute and give rise to a successful prosecution under
Sections 498A or 506 IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, is the crucial question.
11. The second respondent has been living separately since April, 2011and
hence, there is no question of any beating by the appellants as
alleged by her.
The relationship having got strained ever since April,
2011, even application for restitution of conjugal rights having been
withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the second respondent was not interested to
live together,
it is difficult to believe that there is still a demand
for dowry on 30.04.2012 coupled with criminal intimidation.
The
allegations are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and
the time of the incident.
We had called for the records and have gone
through the same.
The materials before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore are not sufficient to form an opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused appellants have committed the
offence under the charged Sections.
The Additional Sessions Court and
the High Court missed these crucial points while considering the
petition filed by the appellants under Section 397 and Section 482 of
the Cr.PC respectively.
The veiled object behind the lame prosecution
is apparently to harass the appellants.
We are, hence, of the view
that the impugned prosecution is wholly unfounded.
Therefore, to
secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of
the criminal court, the charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 10245 of 2012 against the
accused appellants are quashed.
The accused appellants are discharged.
However, we make it clear that nothing contained in this judgment
shall have a bearing on any proceedings between the parties regarding
their matrimonial disputes before the Family Court, since our
observations are only for the purpose of this judgment.
12. The appeal is allowed as above.
2014(May. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41529
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, KURIAN JOSEPH
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1144 OF 2014
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 8965/2013]
Swapnil and Others … Appellant (s)
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh … Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore. As per the impugned
order, the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing the proceedings and charges
framed against the appellants under Section 498A, 506 Part II of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants 2 and 3
are his father and mother respectively. The Respondent No. 2 is the
wife of the first appellant. She lodged a complaint with Mahila Thana,
Indore Police Station on which FIR No. 50 dated 02.05.2012 under
Section 498A, 506 and 34 of IPC was registered. It was alleged in the
complaint that the marriage between the first appellant and second
respondent was performed on 24.06.2009 and after two months of the
marriage, the appellants and the sister of the first appellant started
demanding dowry. It is seen from Annexure-P3-application filed by the
first appellant on 14.07.2011 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights that the second
respondent had left the matrimonial house on 23.04.2011 and thereafter
she had not gone back. On 23.05.2011, a lawyer notice had also been
served on the second respondent which was replied on 02.06.2011.
During the pendency of the proceedings for restitution of conjugal
rights, the second respondent, on 07.09.2011, lodged a complaint
before Mahila Thana, Indore Police Station raising allegations against
the appellants, the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and the sister of
the first appellant. Paragraph 4 of the complaint –Annexure-P4 reads
as follows:
“4. The accused persons yesterday on 06.09.2011 having common intent
collectively came to my parental house and while hurling abuses as
Madarchod, Bahanchod etc. said that if you want life of your mother,
father, brother and sister then you come within one month with Rs.1
lac cash balance 5 tola gold, Wagner Car which is purchased after your
marriage and money for Maruti car otherwise your mother-father, sister
and brother will be kidnapped and they will be killed. They gave
threat to take over possession on my house and said that what wrong
you have caused to us by sending copies in police in reply of our
notice, you do not know us yet. When your mother, father, brother and
sisters would be sent behind jail in false allegations then see govt.
job of your father will be loosed and you would start begging on road
and gave threat that do not dare to go in police, nobody would give
evidence against us in colony because we have approach with big
leaders and officers and gundas elements. If you go in police then
proceeding will be done against you not against us.”
3. Annexure-P5 is the Record of Proceedings dated 12.12.2011 when parties
were called before Mahila Police Station. The same is extracted below:
“Sir,
In connection with enquiry of reference application both the parties
appeared in women police station and statement of both were recorded
which are enclosed with enquiry. Applicant told that her husband
Swapnil does not do any work/business and other members of in-laws
house by putting demand of dowry cause physical and mental harassment.
Let family counseling be done with husband so that domestic life may
remain peaceful.
Non applicant told in his statement that my domestic life could not
run peacefully due to intervention of members of parental house of
Kirti.
Family counseling of both parties was done. There are certain family
differences between both the parties hence both the parties were
suggested to rehabilitate their domestic life by court proceeding.
Report is submitted in your goodself.”
4. The first appellant on 16.04.2012 withdrew the application filed under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, since according to the
first appellant the second respondent was not inclined to resume
cohabitation. It was thereafter, the complaint dated 02.05.2012
leading to the impugned prosecution was filed by the second
respondent. She also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 17.05.2012. It
seems another application under Section 125 of Cr.PC was also filed by
her.
5. The gist of the complaint dated 02.05.2012 reads as follows:
“… On 30.04.2012 they said if you do not fulfill our demand then we
would kill you, thus my husband, father in law, mother in law and
sister in law gave threat for life on the issue of demand of 10 tola
gold, maruti car and 1 lac rupees cash in dowry and have subjected me
on physical and mental harassment now I have been harassed from
cruelty of members of in laws house and I do not want to enter into
any compromise rather I want legal proceeding. …”
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Magistrate, Indore framed
the following charges:
“I, Sarmesh Singh Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore hereby frame
following charge against you Anil S/o Ramdas R/o 73 Laxmipuri Colony,
Indore:
1. You being husband of complainant Kirti subjected her to mental
and physical torture and harassment from 24.06.2009 to
30.04.2012 in 73 Laxmipuri Colony Indore, making illegal demand
of Rs.1,00,000/-, car and 10 tola gold as dowry and by beating
her caused cruelty?
2. You on 30.04.2012 with intention to intimidate complainant Kirti
gave threat to cause her death, as such by intimidating her
caused criminal intimidation?
3. You being husband of complainant Kirit put illegal demand of
Rs.1,00,000/-, car and 10 tola gold as dowry on various
intervals from 24.06.2009 to 30.04.2012 from complainant Kirti
and her relatives?
By doing such you have committed offence which is punishable under
section 498A, 506 Part-2, IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
which is in my cognizance. I by this report order that you be tried in
above mentioned crimes.”
7. The appellants filed Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2013 before the
Sessions Court which was dismissed by Order dated 14.03.2013 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. It is significant to note that even
according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge “it is possible
that accused Swapnil was taking care of his wife…”.
8. If the intervening developments referred to above and the two
complaints are analysed carefully, it can be seen that except for the
improvement with regard to the alleged intimidation on 30.04.2012, the
allegations in the earlier complaint dated 07.09.2011 are exactly the
same. As a matter of fact, there was an allegation with regard to
criminal intimidation in the complaint dated 07.09.2011 as well, as
can be seen from the extracted portion of the complaint. However, in
the complaint dated 02.05.2012, there is a grave allegation on
intimidation to kill, made on 30.04.2012.
9. The first appellant and second respondent had in fact solemnized their
marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir on 16.06.2007 privately, as they were
stated to be in love with each other for sometime. Thereafter only, in
the presence of the family members, marriage was solemnized on
24.06.2009.
10. It has to be seen that admittedly the second respondent has been
living separately since April, 2011. Thereafter, she had lodged a
complaint on 07.09.2011 before the very same police station. The same
was duly enquired into and it was closed stating that the dispute is
actually between the families which are to be otherwise settled in
legal proceedings. If there are such differences between families
which are to be settled in legal proceedings, how such differences
would constitute and give rise to a successful prosecution under
Sections 498A or 506 IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, is the crucial question.
11. The second respondent has been living separately since April, 2011and
hence, there is no question of any beating by the appellants as
alleged by her. The relationship having got strained ever since April,
2011, even application for restitution of conjugal rights having been
withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the second respondent was not interested to
live together, it is difficult to believe that there is still a demand
for dowry on 30.04.2012 coupled with criminal intimidation. The
allegations are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and
the time of the incident. We had called for the records and have gone
through the same. The materials before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore are not sufficient to form an opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused appellants have committed the
offence under the charged Sections. The Additional Sessions Court and
the High Court missed these crucial points while considering the
petition filed by the appellants under Section 397 and Section 482 of
the Cr.PC respectively. The veiled object behind the lame prosecution
is apparently to harass the appellants. We are, hence, of the view
that the impugned prosecution is wholly unfounded. Therefore, to
secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of
the criminal court, the charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 10245 of 2012 against the
accused appellants are quashed. The accused appellants are discharged.
However, we make it clear that nothing contained in this judgment
shall have a bearing on any proceedings between the parties regarding
their matrimonial disputes before the Family Court, since our
observations are only for the purpose of this judgment.
12. The appeal is allowed as above.
………..…………………….…..…………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………..…………………………J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
May 9, 2014.
-----------------------
REPORTABLE
-----------------------
7
High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing the proceedings and charges
framed against the appellants under Section 498A, 506 Part II of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants 2 and 3
are his father and mother respectively. The Respondent No. 2 is the
wife of the first appellant.=
It is seen from Annexure-P3-application filed by the
first appellant on 14.07.2011 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights that the second
respondent had left the matrimonial house on 23.04.2011 and thereafter
she had not gone back. On 23.05.2011, a lawyer notice had also been
served on the second respondent which was replied on 02.06.2011.
During the pendency of the proceedings for restitution of conjugal
rights, the second respondent, on 07.09.2011, lodged a complaint
before Mahila Thana, Indore Police Station raising allegations against
the appellants, the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and the sister of
the first appellant.=
Annexure-P5 is the Record of Proceedings dated 12.12.2011 when parties
were called before Mahila Police Station. The same is extracted below:
“Sir,
In connection with enquiry of reference application both the parties
appeared in women police station and statement of both were recorded
which are enclosed with enquiry. Applicant told that her husband
Swapnil does not do any work/business and other members of in-laws
house by putting demand of dowry cause physical and mental harassment.
Let family counseling be done with husband so that domestic life may
remain peaceful.
Non applicant told in his statement that my domestic life could not
run peacefully due to intervention of members of parental house of
Kirti.
Family counseling of both parties was done. There are certain family
differences between both the parties hence both the parties were
suggested to rehabilitate their domestic life by court proceeding.
Report is submitted in your goodself.”
4. The first appellant on 16.04.2012 withdrew the application filed under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, since according to the
first appellant the second respondent was not inclined to resume
cohabitation. =
The first appellant and second respondent had in fact solemnized their
marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir on 16.06.2007 privately, as they were
stated to be in love with each other for sometime.
Thereafter only, in
the presence of the family members, marriage was solemnized on
24.06.2009.
10. It has to be seen that admittedly the second respondent has been
living separately since April, 2011.
Thereafter, she had lodged a
complaint on 07.09.2011 before the very same police station.
The same
was duly enquired into and it was closed stating that the dispute is
actually between the families which are to be otherwise settled in
legal proceedings.
If there are such differences between families
which are to be settled in legal proceedings, how such differences
would constitute and give rise to a successful prosecution under
Sections 498A or 506 IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, is the crucial question.
11. The second respondent has been living separately since April, 2011and
hence, there is no question of any beating by the appellants as
alleged by her.
The relationship having got strained ever since April,
2011, even application for restitution of conjugal rights having been
withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the second respondent was not interested to
live together,
it is difficult to believe that there is still a demand
for dowry on 30.04.2012 coupled with criminal intimidation.
The
allegations are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and
the time of the incident.
We had called for the records and have gone
through the same.
The materials before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore are not sufficient to form an opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused appellants have committed the
offence under the charged Sections.
The Additional Sessions Court and
the High Court missed these crucial points while considering the
petition filed by the appellants under Section 397 and Section 482 of
the Cr.PC respectively.
The veiled object behind the lame prosecution
is apparently to harass the appellants.
We are, hence, of the view
that the impugned prosecution is wholly unfounded.
Therefore, to
secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of
the criminal court, the charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 10245 of 2012 against the
accused appellants are quashed.
The accused appellants are discharged.
However, we make it clear that nothing contained in this judgment
shall have a bearing on any proceedings between the parties regarding
their matrimonial disputes before the Family Court, since our
observations are only for the purpose of this judgment.
12. The appeal is allowed as above.
2014(May. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41529
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, KURIAN JOSEPH
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1144 OF 2014
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 8965/2013]
Swapnil and Others … Appellant (s)
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh … Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore. As per the impugned
order, the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing the proceedings and charges
framed against the appellants under Section 498A, 506 Part II of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants 2 and 3
are his father and mother respectively. The Respondent No. 2 is the
wife of the first appellant. She lodged a complaint with Mahila Thana,
Indore Police Station on which FIR No. 50 dated 02.05.2012 under
Section 498A, 506 and 34 of IPC was registered. It was alleged in the
complaint that the marriage between the first appellant and second
respondent was performed on 24.06.2009 and after two months of the
marriage, the appellants and the sister of the first appellant started
demanding dowry. It is seen from Annexure-P3-application filed by the
first appellant on 14.07.2011 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights that the second
respondent had left the matrimonial house on 23.04.2011 and thereafter
she had not gone back. On 23.05.2011, a lawyer notice had also been
served on the second respondent which was replied on 02.06.2011.
During the pendency of the proceedings for restitution of conjugal
rights, the second respondent, on 07.09.2011, lodged a complaint
before Mahila Thana, Indore Police Station raising allegations against
the appellants, the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and the sister of
the first appellant. Paragraph 4 of the complaint –Annexure-P4 reads
as follows:
“4. The accused persons yesterday on 06.09.2011 having common intent
collectively came to my parental house and while hurling abuses as
Madarchod, Bahanchod etc. said that if you want life of your mother,
father, brother and sister then you come within one month with Rs.1
lac cash balance 5 tola gold, Wagner Car which is purchased after your
marriage and money for Maruti car otherwise your mother-father, sister
and brother will be kidnapped and they will be killed. They gave
threat to take over possession on my house and said that what wrong
you have caused to us by sending copies in police in reply of our
notice, you do not know us yet. When your mother, father, brother and
sisters would be sent behind jail in false allegations then see govt.
job of your father will be loosed and you would start begging on road
and gave threat that do not dare to go in police, nobody would give
evidence against us in colony because we have approach with big
leaders and officers and gundas elements. If you go in police then
proceeding will be done against you not against us.”
3. Annexure-P5 is the Record of Proceedings dated 12.12.2011 when parties
were called before Mahila Police Station. The same is extracted below:
“Sir,
In connection with enquiry of reference application both the parties
appeared in women police station and statement of both were recorded
which are enclosed with enquiry. Applicant told that her husband
Swapnil does not do any work/business and other members of in-laws
house by putting demand of dowry cause physical and mental harassment.
Let family counseling be done with husband so that domestic life may
remain peaceful.
Non applicant told in his statement that my domestic life could not
run peacefully due to intervention of members of parental house of
Kirti.
Family counseling of both parties was done. There are certain family
differences between both the parties hence both the parties were
suggested to rehabilitate their domestic life by court proceeding.
Report is submitted in your goodself.”
4. The first appellant on 16.04.2012 withdrew the application filed under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, since according to the
first appellant the second respondent was not inclined to resume
cohabitation. It was thereafter, the complaint dated 02.05.2012
leading to the impugned prosecution was filed by the second
respondent. She also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 17.05.2012. It
seems another application under Section 125 of Cr.PC was also filed by
her.
5. The gist of the complaint dated 02.05.2012 reads as follows:
“… On 30.04.2012 they said if you do not fulfill our demand then we
would kill you, thus my husband, father in law, mother in law and
sister in law gave threat for life on the issue of demand of 10 tola
gold, maruti car and 1 lac rupees cash in dowry and have subjected me
on physical and mental harassment now I have been harassed from
cruelty of members of in laws house and I do not want to enter into
any compromise rather I want legal proceeding. …”
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Magistrate, Indore framed
the following charges:
“I, Sarmesh Singh Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore hereby frame
following charge against you Anil S/o Ramdas R/o 73 Laxmipuri Colony,
Indore:
1. You being husband of complainant Kirti subjected her to mental
and physical torture and harassment from 24.06.2009 to
30.04.2012 in 73 Laxmipuri Colony Indore, making illegal demand
of Rs.1,00,000/-, car and 10 tola gold as dowry and by beating
her caused cruelty?
2. You on 30.04.2012 with intention to intimidate complainant Kirti
gave threat to cause her death, as such by intimidating her
caused criminal intimidation?
3. You being husband of complainant Kirit put illegal demand of
Rs.1,00,000/-, car and 10 tola gold as dowry on various
intervals from 24.06.2009 to 30.04.2012 from complainant Kirti
and her relatives?
By doing such you have committed offence which is punishable under
section 498A, 506 Part-2, IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
which is in my cognizance. I by this report order that you be tried in
above mentioned crimes.”
7. The appellants filed Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2013 before the
Sessions Court which was dismissed by Order dated 14.03.2013 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. It is significant to note that even
according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge “it is possible
that accused Swapnil was taking care of his wife…”.
8. If the intervening developments referred to above and the two
complaints are analysed carefully, it can be seen that except for the
improvement with regard to the alleged intimidation on 30.04.2012, the
allegations in the earlier complaint dated 07.09.2011 are exactly the
same. As a matter of fact, there was an allegation with regard to
criminal intimidation in the complaint dated 07.09.2011 as well, as
can be seen from the extracted portion of the complaint. However, in
the complaint dated 02.05.2012, there is a grave allegation on
intimidation to kill, made on 30.04.2012.
9. The first appellant and second respondent had in fact solemnized their
marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir on 16.06.2007 privately, as they were
stated to be in love with each other for sometime. Thereafter only, in
the presence of the family members, marriage was solemnized on
24.06.2009.
10. It has to be seen that admittedly the second respondent has been
living separately since April, 2011. Thereafter, she had lodged a
complaint on 07.09.2011 before the very same police station. The same
was duly enquired into and it was closed stating that the dispute is
actually between the families which are to be otherwise settled in
legal proceedings. If there are such differences between families
which are to be settled in legal proceedings, how such differences
would constitute and give rise to a successful prosecution under
Sections 498A or 506 IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, is the crucial question.
11. The second respondent has been living separately since April, 2011and
hence, there is no question of any beating by the appellants as
alleged by her. The relationship having got strained ever since April,
2011, even application for restitution of conjugal rights having been
withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the second respondent was not interested to
live together, it is difficult to believe that there is still a demand
for dowry on 30.04.2012 coupled with criminal intimidation. The
allegations are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and
the time of the incident. We had called for the records and have gone
through the same. The materials before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore are not sufficient to form an opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused appellants have committed the
offence under the charged Sections. The Additional Sessions Court and
the High Court missed these crucial points while considering the
petition filed by the appellants under Section 397 and Section 482 of
the Cr.PC respectively. The veiled object behind the lame prosecution
is apparently to harass the appellants. We are, hence, of the view
that the impugned prosecution is wholly unfounded. Therefore, to
secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of
the criminal court, the charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 10245 of 2012 against the
accused appellants are quashed. The accused appellants are discharged.
However, we make it clear that nothing contained in this judgment
shall have a bearing on any proceedings between the parties regarding
their matrimonial disputes before the Family Court, since our
observations are only for the purpose of this judgment.
12. The appeal is allowed as above.
………..…………………….…..…………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………..…………………………J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
May 9, 2014.
-----------------------
REPORTABLE
-----------------------
7
