ASHOK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionists have come up with present revision under Sec. 397 r/w Sec. 401 of CrPC, challenging the impugned order dtd. 23/07/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 2529 of 2018, whereby the charges have been framed against revisionists for offences under Ss. 498-A, 294, 506 Part II of IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Facts giving rise to present revision, in short, are that on 20/06/2018 at Mahila Police Station, Gwalior complainant Smt. Tanu Sharma submitted a written complaint alleging therein that, she got married to Rahul Sharma, resident of Mathura (UP) on 12/12/2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Silver OAK Hotel, City Centre, Gwalior and at the time of marriage, her father had given net cash of Rs.11.00 lac along with other gold ornaments as per status but her in-laws were not satisfied with it and started ill-treatment with her and pressurize her to bring some more dowry. Her husband told her to bring a SUV Car, otherwise they use to beat her. It is alleged that when complainant lived with her husband in Delhi, on 25/06/2017 accused revisionists Nos.1, 2 and 4 (father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant) came to Delhi and told the complainant for calling her parents in regard to talking on the issue of dowry and her Mausa Girraj Sharma also came to Delhi, where revisionists No.1 to 4 told if the parents of complainant did not fulfil demand of Rs.5.00 lac and said car, they did not bring the complainant with them. After two months thereafter, the parents of complainant gave Rs.5.00 lac to her in-laws. It is further alleged that on one day of night at around 12 O'clock, her husband and her other in-laws left her lonely in the rented house and the complainant thereafter called her Mausa Giraj Sharma on 15/10/2017 and informed about the incident. Thereafter, the complainant along with her family members went to her in-laws house at Mathura on 18/10/2021 where her in-laws also insulted the father of complainant and turn out them out of house and in order to save their life, complainant along with her father immediately came to Gwalior and since then, complainant is residing in her parental house at Gwalior. Many times, family members of the complainant tried to settle the matter but her in-laws were not ready. Therefore, a complaint/FIR has been lodged at Mahila Police Station, Gwalior and on the basis of which, the police has registered aforesaid offences as mentioned in para 1 of this order against accused persons. After completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed charge sheet before the Court of JMFC. Being aggrieved, present revision has been filed.

(3.) Challenging the impugned order of framing charges as well as impugned FIR, the counsel for revisionists submitted that the Court below did not appreciate evidence and materials properly and committed grave error in framing charges against revisionists. There is no direct or indirect evidence available against revisionists but in order to harass them, the complainant has lodged a false and frivolous FIR on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. Initially, the revisionist No.1, who is father-in-law of complainant, submitted a report to SSP, Mathura stating therein that the conduct and behaviour of the complainant is not good and there is a relationship between complainant with one Nitin Gupta and when police did not take any action, he filed a private complaint before the Court of JMFC, Mathura and on the basis of counter-blast, present FIR/complaint has been lodged by complainant which is an afterthought. There is mala fide intention of complainant and prosecution launched against revisionists is clear abuse of process of law in the light of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others 1990 SCR Supl.(3) 259. It is further contended that earlier, the husband of complainant filed an application under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and same has been allowed by the concerning Family Court. It is further contended that without conducting a preliminary enquiry by the police, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the revisionists and the same deserves to be quashed in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs. Government UP and Others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. It is further contended that there is a growing tendency in the society to falsely implicate the in-laws under Sec. 498-A IPC in regard to demand of dowry, therefore, prosecution cannot be permitted to unnecessarily harass by registration of FIR against innocent persons like present revisionists. In support of contention, the counsel for revisionists has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363. There is no specific allegation against revisionists in regard to bringing more dowry and after marriage, since the complainant was living in Delhi and revisionists No. 1 and 2 (father-in-law and mother-in-law) are living separately in Mathura, therefore, no offence of demand of dowry is made out against them in the light of the judgment of K. Subha Rao and Others vs. The State of Telangana and Others (CRA No.1045 of 2018, decided on 21/8/2018). It is further contended that the sister-in-law of the complainant (herein revisionist No.4) has already got married in 2016 and since then, she is living at Bombay, therefore, no case of harassment or ill-treatment is made out against her. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order of framing of charges passed by the Court below be set aside and present revision deserves to be allowed.