KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 313/99 dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 12.10.1999 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 652/99 framing charges under Section 498 -A and 506 part -II read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. The facts giving rise to this petition are these : -The respondent no.2, Smt. Mukta Pandey, was married to Krishna Kumar Pandey, the petitioner No. 1, on 7.6.1991. She lodged a written report on 20.12.1998 with the Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Jabalpur whereby a Crime No. 27/98 for offences under Section 498 -A and 506/34 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the petitioners and one S.K.Pandey, father of the petitioner no.1. The petitioners No.2 to 5 are the relations of petitioner no.1 After investigation the concerned Police submitted a charge -sheet against the petitioners as well as against S.K. Pandey, the father of petitioner No.1 who died during the pendency of the case. The learned Magistrate by order dated 12.10.1999 framed charges under Section 498 -A and 506 Part -II read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Court of Sessions. The learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur by order dated 11.1.2000 passed in Criminal Revision No.313/99 dismissed the revision. Against the said order dated 11.1.2000 the present petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the charges framed against them. A careful scrutiny of the entire material on record reveals that before the respondent no.2 Mukta Pandey submitted a written report on 20.12.1998, the petitioner no.1 had already filed a divorce petition against her which was filed on 12.5.1998. It is abundantly clear from the record that the divorce decree has been passed against her on 6.10.1998. It is also clear from the record that though the complainant Smt. Mukta Pandey has mentioned in her written report dated 20.12.1998 that she is residing with her parents since last 7 to 8 months prior to 20.12.1998 but in fact she is residing separately from her husband since 23.1.1994 i.e. for last about five years prior to her report. It is also clear that she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband in the year 1996 which was decreed on 17.12.1996. Had she been subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by her husband and other relations of her husband as alleged by her in her written report, she would not have filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband. It is also apparent from the record that since last about five years when she has been living separately from her husband and with her parents she never lodged a report against her husband and his relations and it was only after a decree of divorce has been passed against her that she chose to file a report against him.

(2.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others : AIR 1990 S.C. 1962 that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record in order to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It has, further, been held by the Supreme Court that the Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. The facts and cirumstances, as pointed out earlier, clearly establish that the respondent no.2 Smt. Mukta Pandey obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband, the petitioner no. 1, which clearly shows that she had no apprehension in her mind that her husband, the petitioner no.1 and his family members would be treating her with cruelty. This clearly falsifies her contention that she was being subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry or was being threatened by her husband and her in -laws. Admittedly, her husband, the petitioner No.1 did not resume cohabitation with her despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In fact, the husband was successful in obtaining the decree for divorce against her which was granted on the ground that the respondent/wife treated him with cruelty. It is, thus abundantly clear that the wife having failed in her attempts to pressurise her husband to live with her and after a decree for divorce having been passed against her and in favour of her husband, she in sheer desperation has lodged the report which prima facie in the foregoing circumstances appears to be false, frivolous and vexatious. A Court of law cannot remain a silent spectator and cannot be made a tool of gratifying personal vengeance of any party. Therefore in the foregoing circumstances of this case, the wife cannot be permitted to take recourse by initiating a false action by lodging a report under Section 498 -A IPC. The provisions of Section 498 -A have been incorporated in the Indian Penal Code by amendment with a view to provide special provision to protect and safeguard the interests of weaker sex. However, the tendency to wreak vengeance against husband which is not unusual to notice these days, has to be checked and deserves to be nipped in the buds, in suitable cases otherwise the innocent members of her in laws shall feel insecured as the sword of Section 498 -A shall continue to hang over them. Therefore, in cases where facts available on record even prima facie indicates at the stage of framing of charge, that criminal proceedings have been initiated by angered wife for wreaking her vengeance against her husband and her in -laws by complaining of offence under Section 498 -A IPC etc, the trial Court should be circumspect and careful to examine the report and should not frame charge and stop proceedings of the trial.

(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the, considered view that continuance of the criminal trial against petitioners on the basis of report lodged by respondent no.2, would be nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, quashing of the charges and the said proceeding, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is called for and in fact appears to be necessary. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order framing charges as above against the petitioners is set aside and the accused/petitioners stand discharged.