PRAMILA DHINGRA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed for quashment of the proceedings of criminal case no. 5096/2010 under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC pending before the court of J.M.F.C., Bhopal (Smt. Surekha Mishra).

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are father-in-law and mother in-law of the complainant/respondent no. 2 whose marriage was performed with the son of the applicants Devendra on 9.3.2002 and on 20.9.2009 the applicants' son and husband of the complainant/respondent no. 2 was died due to heart attack. Thereafter, respondent no.2/the complainant has been residing in her parental house. On 21.1.2010 the complainant/respondent no. 2 filed a written complaint before the City Superintendent of Police, T.T. Nagar Division Bhopal that the applicants had not disclosed the fact that their son Devendra was suffering from one kidney failure and she was subjected to cruelty in connection of demand of dowry by the applicants about which earlier in the year 2005 a complaint was made in the Police Station Jahagirabad, Bhopal and the matter was disposed of in compromise on 14.9.2005 and in October, 2009 her husband was died and she was thrown away from matrimonial house by the applicants without taking care of her livelihood and false report was lodged against her and her relatives on 18.10.2009 in the Police Station Kamla Nagar, Bhopal and the applicants are continuously threatening. The articles belonging to the complainant/respondent no. 2 and her daughter were not returned and criminal case was registered in Kamla Nagar, Bhopal as crime no. 65/10 and after investigation, charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Bhopal and learned JMFC has framed charges for commission of offence under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Bhopal in revision and by order dated 4.10.2010 learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal exonerated the applicants of the offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but confirmed the order with regard to framing of charge under Section 498- A/34 of the IPC. Hence, this petition has been filed on the ground that the complainant/respondent no. 2 has filed this case maliciously with a view to take revenge as a counter blast of the FIR lodged by applicant no. 2 on 18.10.2009 which was registered in Police Station Kamla Nagar as Crime No. 55/100 against the relatives of the complainant with regard to demand of money and taking grand daughter forcefully immediately after completion of ritual on the death of their son. Hence, aforesaid criminal proceedings be quashed as it amounts to misuse of process of the court.

(3.) Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it emerges that the complainant/respondent no.2 has lodged the FIR against the applicants after lodging of the FIR by applicant no. 2 against the complainant/respondent no. 2 and her relatives. After the death of the husband of the complainant/respondent no. 2, she is living separately with her parents and since 2005 to 2009 there is no allegation with regard to cruelty with her by the applicants. From the written complaint submitted to the police by the respondent no. 2/complainant, it appears that main grievance of the complainant/respondent no. 2 is that she has been left without making any arrangement of her residence or maintenance. The aforesaid act and behaviour of the applicants will not come in purview of cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the IPC. For getting accommodation or maintenance, the complainant/respondent no. 2 has a right to file petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for the aforesaid relief. But, despite of filing of the petition before the appropriate Court or Forum for the aforesaid relief, with a view to take revenge aforesaid crime has been got registered as a counter blast of the report lodged by applicant no.2 against the complainant/respondent no. 2 which is a malicious act for which the complainant/respondent no. 2 cannot be permitted to continue the aforesaid prosecution against the applicants as it would amount to process of the court.