SUSHIL KESHWANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have challenged the registration of crime No.136/2013 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, Gwalior for the offence under Sections 498 - A, 494 and 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR before the Police Station Mahila Thana Padav on 19 -07 -2013 that she was a divorced woman and her marriage took place with one Vikas Motwani on 18 -06 - 2012. Her husband was working at Muscat Oman since last 15 years and he came to celebrate his holidays at Gwalior in the house of his mother and thereafter the applicants with connivance of Vikas Motwani misrepresented that the marriage of Vikas Motwani was dissolved and he obtained the legal divorce from his first wife. The forged documents were shown by the applicants relating to that divorce. After marriage, complainant found that Vikas Motwani was not a B.Com. graduate but he had passed only Class -12th. Similarly, fake birth chart was given to match the birth chart. Vikas Motwani was suffering from high blood pressure and hernia. He was in the habit of smoking. He was a miser person, who harassed the complainant with the help of his mother Pushpa Motwani and the applicants. On the second day of marriage, the applicants along with husband of the complainant closed the doors of the house and asked for the articles given by the parents of the complainant and thereafter abused her because no golden ornaments or chain was given to her husband. After marriage when her husband went to Muscat, he was cautioned by the applicants that don't call his wife (complainant) to his place. He was directed to earn for three years and send the amount to the applicants from time to time. The complainant was not permitted to go Bhopal, ultimately after three months of her marriage, her father came to take her and thereafter by getting visit visa, she went to Muscat. However, her husband treated her in bad manner. She was harassed physically and mentally. The complainant has mentioned various facts about the harassment done by her husband at Muscat thereafter she came back and still she was being harassed by the applicants, therefore, she had lodged the FIR.

(3.) After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the complainant had made some allegations against her husband. Omnibus allegations were made against the applicants, who were not residing with mother -in -law of the complainant. Applicant No.2 is a married daughter of the family and she was residing with the applicant No.1 in the locality of Sikandar Kampoo, Lashkar Gwalior. It was alleged against the applicants that they committed forgery by showing that the husband of the complainant was a divorced person, however the offence under Section 494 of IPC is not cognizable offence and therefore, it is for the complainant to lodge a separate complaint for that offence against the applicants or her husband. According to the FIR, marriage of the complainant took place on 18 -06 -2012 and she has mentioned that on the next day of marriage, the applicants closed the doors of the house and told her to show the articles given by her parents, thereafter, she was blamed that she did not bring the golden ornaments or chain for her husband. However, in the FIR it was mentioned that the harassment was done between the period from 24 -06 -2012 to 19 -07 -2013, it means that no harassment was done in first six days of marriage of the complainant and therefore, such blame appears to be fake.