SHREEKANT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since M.Cr.C.No.12341/2018 and Cr.R.No.1125/2018 are between the same parties and involve similar questions of fact and law, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) M.Cr.C.No.12341/2018 has been instituted on a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioners accused persons Shreekant, P. Durgaprasad Rao, P. Ranganayakamma and Smt. Prabha Patibanda for quashing the FIR No.108/2017 dated 13.05.2017 registered by P.S.- Vijaynagar, Jabalpur under Sections 304-B read with section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners. Cr.R.No.1125/2018 is directed against the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 804/2017, whereby a charge under Sections 304-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was framed against the accused persons petitioners Shreekant, P. Durgaprasad Rao, P. Ranganayakamma and Smt. Prabha Patibanda.

(3.) The facts giving rise to aforesaid petitions may be summarized as hereunder. Petitioner Shreekant had married deceased Dr. Anuradha Tiwari on 08.12.2016 by Hindu rites at Jabalpur. Accused/petitioner no.2 P. Durgaprasad Rao is father, accused/petitioner no.3 P. Ranganayakamma is mother and accused/petitioner no.4 Prabha Patibanda is sister of Shreekant. At the time of engagement of Shreekant with Anuradha on 10.11.2016, the family members of Anuradha had given gold ornaments, clothes, fruits and sweets and Rs.161,000/- in cash to Shreekant and his family members. On 08.12.2016, on the occasion of marriage, they had given gold ornaments and Rs.3,52,000/- in cash and some silver utensils worth Rs.1 lac to Shreekant and his family members. On 08.12.2016, the reception was hosted in the matrimonial home of deceased Anuradha at Hyderabad. The reception was attended by her Mother Manorama, father Madhusudan and brother Ashish. On that occasion also, some gold ornaments were given to Shreekant. On 03.01.2017, deceased returned from her matrimonial home at Hyderabad to her maternal home at Jabalpur. She stayed with her parents till 21.01.2017. On 21.01.2017, petitioner Shreekant had come to Jabalpur to fetch his wife. At that time, Shreekant demanded Rs.10 lacs in cash and a Mahindra SUV 500 Car in dowry; whereon, the relatives of deceased told Shreekant that they were going to marry Ashish in April, 2017; therefore, they would not be able to give money forthwith but after marriage, they would discuss the matter with Shreekant. On aforesaid assurance, Shreekant returned along with Anuradha to Hyderabad. After their return, Anuradha informed her parents on telephone that due to non- fulfillment of demand made by Shreekant, he, his mother P. Ranganayakamma, his father P. Durgaprasad Rao and his sister Smt. Prabha Patibanda were harassing her. She also told that though Prabha was married, she was also involved in the harassment. After some days, deceased Anuradha again complained to her mother on mobile phone regarding harassment being meted to her by her in-laws. Her mother Manorama had tried to pacify her; however, Anuradha used to complain that she was being continuously harassed by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and she was not happy at her matrimonial home. She told that she was made to sleep on floor and her in-laws insisted that until and unless their demands were fulfilled, they would not accord the status of daughter-in-law of deceased Anuradha. Father-in- law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law often said that deceased Anuradha was ugly and even their maids looked better. They would not allow her to enter kitchen. Her husband Shreekant would turn her out of his room and would ask her to sleep on floor in the drawing room.