ASHOK MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners-Accused have filed this M.Cr.C. u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR No. 337/09 registered at P.S.-Bhalumada, Distt.- Anuppur for the offence punishable u/s 498-A, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that the respondentcomplainant No.2 Smt. Archana Tiwari was married to petitioneraccused No.1 Ashok Mishra on dated 11.02.2005, as per Hindu Rites & customs. Petitioner-accused No.2 Rajbihari Mishra is father-inlaw, No.3 is Rajneesh Mishra is brother-in-law, No.4 Smt. Saroj Mishra is mother-in-law and No.5 Archana Tiwari is Sister-in-law of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has filed a written complaint on dated 24.11.2009 before In-charge Police Station-Bhalumada in which it is mentioned that after marriage, first time, she was lived with petitioner-accused at matrimonial house at Shahdol, for one week. Thereafter, her father came her matrimonial house and brought her to paternal house Jamuna. After one year, in year 2006, she again came her matrimonial home. She lived with petitioner No.1-accused. During this period, petitioners-accused tortured her for demand of dowry. She told these things to her father. She again came her parental house. When third time, she came matrimonial house then during this period also, petitioners-accused tortured her due to demand of dowry. Her father came to matrimonial house on dated 12.01.2009 she came her parental house Jamuna. He lodged a complaint before Mahila Pramarsh Kendra, Kotma. A conciliation proceeding was initiated in Mahila Pramarsh Kendra. Thereafter, she again came her matrimonial home. Petitioners-accused again demanded Rs. 50,000/, washing machine etc., as dowry. Petitionersaccused again tortured her due to demand of dowry. At that time, she was pregnant. Her father came her matrimonial house and brought respondent No.2 to the Jamuna . So petitioners-accused tortured her for demand of dowry. On the basis of written complaint, FIR No. 337/09 has been registered against petitioners-accused on dated 24.11.2009. 10 days prior to lodging FIR, petitioner No.1 came to parental house of respondent No.2 and abused her, inflicted injury and pressed her neck also. Statements of respondent No.2, her fatherMahesh Prasad, mother Smt. Saroj Tiwari, Savitri Bai, Vimla, Hari Prasad Shukla, Nisha Tiwari, and Smt. Nisha Singh have been recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners-accused u/s 498-A, 323, r/w 34 of IPC, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused submits that respondent No.2-complainant left her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason. On dated 31.10.2009, a complaint was lodged by petitioner-accused No.1 with respect to leaving of house without any reason by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 left the house without any consent and even no intimation has been given. Respondent No.2 took all her ornaments and told him to implicate petitionersaccused in the false case. Thereafter, on 15.01.2009, a notice to this effect was also sent by petitioner-accused No.1 through advocate to respondent No.2. This notice was received on 20.01.2009. It is mentioned in this notice that respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial house without any reason and further if she would not come to reside with her husband a divorce case would be filed by the petitioner-accused No.1. A copy of acknowledgment alongwith envelope is being filed as Annexure A-1 & A-2. That some how once again, she came back to her maternal house but stayed for 2-3 days only. Respondent No.2, with malafide intention, lodged a report on dated 23.01.2009 vide Annexere A-3 at P.S.-Bhalumada against petitioner-accused Nos.1-4. On dated 31.07.2009, a son was born from legal wedlock of respondent No.2 and petitioner-accused No.1, whose name is Shubh. The petitioner-accused No.1 on dated 29.10.2009 gave a written complaint vide Annexure A-4 to Thana Incharge-Kotwali, Distt.-Shahdol that her wife left the house without any reason and she is about to implicate all petitioners-accused in false case. The petitioner-accused No.1 filed a divorce petition u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Principal Judge, Family Court Shahdol. On dated 31.10.2009, the petitioner-accused No.1 made a complaint vide Annexure A-5 to Thana Incharge-Bhalumada alongwith encloure of report dated 29.10.2009 and prayed for not registering any false case or further to save petitioners-accused from any such false case which is registered. On 24.11.2009, an FIR was registered. On 30.04.2012, the Family Court Shahdol, passed the decree of judicial separation in favour of accused-petitioner No.1 and thereafter on 25.06.2014, the Family Court passed a final decree of divorce in favour of petitioner-accused No.1. A charge-sheet has been filed against petitioners-accused then on dated 23.07.2010 an application was filed by petitioners-accused u/s 177 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kotma that the cause of action for lodging report is Shahdol and hence report at Police Station, Anuppur cannot be lodged and hence prayed for quashing of FIR or the transfer of case from JMFC, Kotma to Shahdol. Learned JMFC, Kotma rejected the application and held that the offence u/s 498-A is of continuing nature and thus partial cause of action has also arose at Bhalumada. Then petitioners-accused filed a revision against this order, which was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Kotma on 29.04.2014. On 02.03.2015, the learned JMFC, Kotma framed charge against petitioners-accused u/s 498-A of IPC, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC and in alternated u/s 323/34 of IPC. Petitioners-accused preferred a revision before the Sessions Court Kotma on dated 16.06.2015 against framin of charge whereby the Sessions Court, Kotma partly allowed the revision and observed that the offence of Section 498-A is not of a continuing nature and further observed that charge No.3 i.e. Section 323/34 of IPC against all other petitioners-accused excluding her husband-petitioner-accsued No.1 is not maintainable and thus quashing the charge been imposed and remand the matter back to JMFC for fresh framing of charge. Thereafter, learned JMFC on dated 29.12.2015, framed charge u/s 498-A and Section 323 of IPC against the petitioner-accused No.1. This time respondent No.2-complainant filed a revision against that order on the ground that JMFC had committed the error in complete discharge of petitioner-accused No.2-5. The Sessions Court allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to JMFC for fresh framing of charge. On dated 04.10.2017, JMFC once again framed all the charges against all the petitioners-accused. It is crystal clear from the elements available in the charge-sheet that complete false case for taking shelter of law for illegal purpose has been lodged by the respondent No.2. The first step for unreasoned leaving of wife was taken by husband/petitioner-accused No.1 by lodging report and sending notice to the respondent No.2. The further step of respondent is only self created story for some ulterior purpose. The decree of judicial separation and divorce shows there is no cruelty and demand of dowry from the part of the petitioners-accused. Divorce has already been taken place between the petitioner No.1- accused and respondent No.2. So, the whole case has been registered only to harass the petitioners-accused. Hence, prays for quashing the FIR and its further proceedings.