MAJEED KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 498-A I. P. C. before the Judicial Magistrate Class I Sihora in Cr. Case No. 59/89. They applied for their discharge under Section 239 Cr. P. C. which request has been rejected and charge as aforesaid framed. The applicants challenged the same by filing a Criminal Revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge Sihora which has been dismissed by the order dated 8-9-89. Not satisfied with the aforesaid, they have filed this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. praying for quashing of those proceedings on the ground that they amount to misuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) RECORD of the trial Magistrate indicates that officer-in-charge of police station Majhouli filed the charge-sheet on 21-2-89 alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A I. P. C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge-sheet indicates that a report was lodged by one Suraiya Parveen, the wife of applicant No. 3 Abdul Salam on 17-11-88 to the effect that she was married to this applicant on 26-5-88. On 27-5-88 when she reached her father-in-law's house, the applicants felt unhappy with the dowry that she had brought with her and had started abusing her and her parents. On 1-6-88 her brother came to bring her back to her parents' house when she informed the ill-treatment given to her by the applicants for not bringing sufficient dowry. She had further told her brother that all the applicants had told her that she should not come back unless she brings a colour TV and Scooter. On 8-6-88, she was again brought back to the house of the applicants; but since her father could not give the scooter and colour TV, the applicants continued harassing her for that purpose. Report further indicates that on 14-6-88, the applicant No. 3 left her at her parents' home because her parents had not given TV and scooter. She further alleged that she was tortured and abused every day, while she stayed in the applicants' house. On the basis of this F. I. R. , the police seized certain letters and the medical certificate indicating that the complainant Suraiya Parveen was treated for chest pain, backache and sprain of right wrist joint w. e. f. 15-6-88. The police also recorded statements of complainant's father Mohd. Abdul Latif Khan, her brothers Shahadat Khan and Ashad Khan and mother Kuresha Begum. Since, according to the police, evidence disclosed sufficient ground to proceed against the applicants, they filed the charge-sheet as aforesaid.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the evidence on record does not disclose even prima facie commission of offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. and therefore, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. It was strenuously urged that this provision should not be permitted is to be misused by the complainant to harass an innocent person. It is also submitted that there was no justification whatsoever for joining applicant Rukhsana alias Rukkobai, aged only 14 years as accused person. It was further submitted that even if the allegations against these applicants are accepted, they will, at the most, amount to civil cruelty which may be sufficient for divorce in a matrimonial case but is wholly insufficient for criminal prosecution.