PRAKASH CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST petitioner was the husband, second petitioner was the father-in-law, petitioners 3 to 5 were brothers-in-law and 6th petitioner was mother-in-law of shashiprabha Jam. The marriage took place on 15-2-1988. The wife lived in the husbands house till 18.3.1988 and thereafter was allegedly sent back to the parental house. The husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Martiage Act seeking declaration or nullity of the marriage on the ground of perpetration of fraud by suppressing that the wife was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. Then wife remained ex-parte. The matrimonial Court passed a decree on 16.11.1989 declaring the marriage a nullity. The decree has become final. On 15.2.1990, the uncle of Shashiprabha Jam gave information to the police on the basis of which F. J. R. was prepared and a case registered against the petitioners for offences under Section 498A J.P. C. read with See. 34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioners. The court took cognizance and issued process and after appearance of the accused the court framed charges against them. These charges are now sought to be quashed.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the complaint to the police was lodged nearly two years after the husband allegedly drove the wife out of the house and three months after the civil court declared the marriage a nullity and no attempt has been made to explain the delay. The allegations against the petitioners are that at the time of marriage substantive dowry was given and even thereafter demands were made and the wife was harassed and she was sent out only with a view to compel her to fetch the additional demands. In the light of these allegations, explanation should have been provided in regard to the delay. The fact that at least immediately on the husband filing the petition for declaration of nullity, no attempt was made to approach the police in regard to the offences alleged and the wife or her uncle waited till the decree was passed is a strong circumstance exposing falsity of the prosecution case. THERE can be no doubt that it is a pure after thought. THERE is also the further circumstance that the prosecution has not alleged any demand for dowry as defined under the Dowry Prohibition Act. In these circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has not come out with a case which if unremitted would lead to conviction of the accused. The charges are quashed. Petition is allowed. Charges are quashed.