AMOLSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quash of proceedings arsing from Crime No.238/2016 registered at Police Station- Suatala, District-Narsinghpur against the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC and section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Post investigation, the charge- sheet was filed and thereafter the case No.RCT-5956/2016 commenced against the petitioners in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur. The petitioner no.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent no.2. The petitioner no.3-Avnish @ Deepu is the brother- in-law of the respondent no.2 and the petitioner no.4 is the husband of the respondent no.2. The petitioner no.1 to 3 are all resident of village- Barmankala, Tahsil-Kareli, District-Narsinghpur and the petitioner no.4 is resident of Gadarwara, District-Narsinghpur. The marriage between the petitioner no.4 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and rituals on 30.11.2012. On 09.04.2015, the respondent no.2 left her matrimonial house and started staying with her parents at Suatala along with her son Naman. On 06.05.2016, the respondent no.2 registered the aforementioned FIR against the petitioners.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law and that the case has been registered against the petitioners in order to blackmail them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has read out from the 161 statements of the complainant/respondent no.2-Kirti who has stated that she was married to the petitioner no.4, four years before she registered the FIR against him and at the time of marriage her parents had given Rs.5,00,000/-(Five Lacs Rupees) in cash and five Tolas of gold and other articles of household needs to the petitioners. She further states that she was looked after well about four months and thereafter on trivial issues the petitioners are alleged to have harassed her mentally and that the petitioner no.4, the husband of the respondent no.2, used to physically harass the respondent no.2. She has also stated that the petitioners demanded Rs.5,00,000/- in cash as dowry and taunted the respondent no.2 that her parents did not give anything at the time of marriage and unless she brings to her matrimonial home Rs.5,00,000/- as demanded by the petitioners, she will not be kept in the matrimonial house. The respondent no.2 alleges that her husband, the petitioner no.4, tried to kill her thrice. One of those attempts involved a knife attack. In another instance, the petitioner no.4 allegedly caught hold of her hairs and threw her on the floor and tried to beat her. The petitioner no.4 is also alleged to have taunted the respondent no.2 by stating that the child she was expecting has not been fathered by him. Thus, the respondent no.2 states that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law and her husband used to mentally harass her on account of which she left her matrimonial home on 09.04.2015. The father of the respondent no.4 has also given a statement under section 161 . In addition to what has been stated hereinabove by the respondent no.2, the father of the respondent no.2 states that he had gone to meet the petitioner no.1 to discuss the matrimonial issue between the respondent no.2 and petitioner no.4 and had asked the petitioner no.1 to transfer 10 acres of agricultural land in the name of the respondent no.2. However, the petitioner no.1 is stated to have refused to the said proposal, and lastly in his 161 statement, the father of the respondent no.2 states that if 10 acres of land is transferred in the name of the respondent no.2, he (father of the respondent no.2) is still willing to compromise the case with the petitioners. The mother of the respondent no.2-Radha Bai as also given her statement under section 161 in which she has reiterated the same allegations as has been stated by the respondent no.2. The brother of the respondent no.2-Ranjeet has also given the statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which, besides levelling the same allegations as the respondent no.2, he has joined his father and stated in the 161 statement that his father had gone to settle the issue with the petitioner no.1 but the petitioner no.1 and his family were not willing to accept the proposal put forward by the father of the respondent no.2. He further states very firmly that unless 10 acres of land is transferred in the name of the respondent no.2 by the petitioners, the family of the respondent no.2 would never send her back the respondent no.2 to her matrimonial home.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the statements of the respondent no.2 and her parents so far as it relates to the facts and circumstances pertaining to mental and physical torture are vague and omnibus. The said statements do not reveal precisely or even approximately, the date or even the month of the year in which the said allegations pertaining to mental and physical torture were inflicted on the respondent no.2. This Court is an agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the evidence on record so far as it pertains to the aspect of mental and physical torture and demand for dowry is onmibus in nature and is lacking in specific details. According to him, the real reason why the criminal case was foisted upon the petitioner no.2 and his entire family was on account of refusal of the petitioner no.1 to transfer 10 acres of agricultural land in the name of respondent no.2. In order to buttress his argument, he once again drawn the attention of this Court to that part of the statement of the father and brother of the respondent no.2 where it is very clearly stated that (a) that they are willing to compromise the case with the petitioners if 10 acres of the land are transferred in favour of the respondent no.2 ,and (b) they would never send the respondent no.2 to her matrimonial home till their demand was not acceded to.