Amir Gul and another vs Mohsin Khan and others

This miscellaneous criminal case has been instituted on an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of petitioners/ accused persons Kailash Lodhi, Diwan Singh Lodhi, Ku. Bhuri for quashing first information report dated 28.9.2012 registered as crime No.23/2012 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sagar for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 294 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The facts necessary for disposal of this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may briefly be stated thus: Victim Roshni had married petitioner No.1 Kailash on 6 th May, 2011. At the time of Lagun, the father of the victim had given Rs.5,75,000/- in cash, clothes worth Rs.40,000/- and other items worth Rs.30,000/-. At the time of marriage, gold and silver ornaments and household items worth Rs.60,000/- were given to the petitioner Kailash; however, he demanded a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle in dowry and refused to dine unless his demand was met. The father of the victim requested petitioner Kailash that whatever was settled earlier, has already been given to the petitioner; therefore, he was not in a position to give pulsar motorcycle. Petitioner Kailash was somehow pacified and the victim was taken to her matrimonial home. She was kept well for few days; however, after her first visit to her maternal home, father-in-law Diwan Singh (petitioner no.2) sister-in-law Ku. Bhuri Bai (petitioner no.3) told the

victim that petitioner Kailash is insisting upon Pulsar motorcycle and has warned that he would not sit on any other vehicle. When this demand was communicated to father of the victim, he told the petitioners that he has two other daughters to marry and he has already given more dowry, than he could afford; therefore, he was not in a position to pay anything more; whereon, petitioners Diwan and Bhuri threatened that if Pulsar Motorcycle is not sent, it would not be good for the victim. After some days, victim returned to her matrimonial home; whereon, petitioner Bhuri again reminded her of the Pulsar Motorcycle. Her husband Kailash filthily abused her and observed that victim''s father was shrewd and he would have to bend the finger to take the ghee out. Petitioners Diwan and Bhuri used to taunt the victim that if Kailash had married elsewhere, he would have got Rs.10,00,000/- in cash and a Maruti Car in dowry. In connection with aforesaid demand; they used to beat up the victim. Petitioner Diwan used to insist that the victim must procure motorcycle because his son was moving on foot. They used to beat and harass the victim and used to deprive her of food. Petitioner Diwan used to tell his son to divorce the victim and marry a second time. When father and nephew of the victim had gone to her matrimonial home to bring her back, she hugged them and asked them to give pulsar motorcycle to Kailash, otherwise the petitioners would kill her. Thereafter, the petitioners snatched away her ornaments and sent her back to her maternal home in the clothes she was wearing and the magal sutra. Petitioner Bhuri

also used to taunt her that she had spent one month with her husband, yet was unable to conceive; inferring that she was infertile. The victim stayed at her maternal home for a period of about one year since June, 2011. Her father requested the petitioners to take the victim to her matrimonial home but they did not do so. On 1.9.2012, the petitioners came to the maternal home of the victim and asked whether arrangement for pulsar motorcycle has been made. When the father of the victim expressed his inability, they beat up the victim and returned without taking her. Later, the victim learnt that petitioner Kailash was trying to remarry.

Petitioners submit that the victim is suffering from some mental ailments. This fact was not disclosed to the petitioners. Her behaviour was extremely abnormal and she behaved like a mentally challenged person. Within 10-15 days of her marriage, she tried to commit suicide by jumping into well. When this fact was communicated to victim''s father, he took her to her maternal home on 23.5.2011 for treatment; however, the victim did not respond to the treatment. The petitioner is not in a position to spend his entire life with a mentally challenged person because she does not understand the meaning of marriage and married life. In aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to move an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of District Judge, Sagar on 30 th July, 2012, for declaring the marriage dated 6.5.2011 null and void. After service of notice of aforesaid case upon the victim, this first information

report has been lodged on 28.9.2012 leveling false allegations of dowry harassment. Inviting attention of the court to the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhashrath P. Bundela and others Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2012 (1) MPHT 196, wherein one of the grounds for quashing a FIR was that it was lodged immediately after filing the case for divorce by the husband. The other ground was that no specific allegations regarding dowry harassment mentioning time, date, place etc. were leveled; therefore it has been contended that it should be presumed that the FIR has been lodged for the purpose of wrecking vengeance upon the husband and his relatives. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the cases of Preeti Gupta Vs State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and Prashant Sharma vs State of M.P ., 2017 Cri.L.J. 2015. As such the petitioners should not be made to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial on the basis of such omnibus allegations; therefore, it has been prayed that the first information report be quashed.

Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the victim on the other hand have argued that along with the petition, the petitioners themselves have filed the proceedings for reconciliation conducted by the family Consultation Centre appended to Mahila Thana, Sagar. The stand of petitioner Kailash before the Centre, as reflected in the proceedings dated 28.12.2012 reveals that the only allegations that have been leveled by petitioner Kailash against

victim Roshni is that she does not know household work, threatens to commit suicide, suspects the fidelity of the husband, harasses petitioner Kailash and suddenly gets annoyed; therefore, he does not wish to keep the victim with him. It has been pointed out that in those proceedings, no allegation to the effect was made that the victim was mentally challenged. It has further been submitted that specific allegations of dowry demand and dowry harassment and cruelty have been leveled against all three petitioners which can be adjudicated upon only after the trial; therefore, it has been prayed that the petition be dismissed.

On perusal of record and due consideration of the rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:

The main argument that has been advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this first information report regarding demand for dowry and dowry harassment has been lodged by way of counter blast to the petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by petitioner Kailash for declaring their marriage null and void. In support of aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the observations made by this Court in the case of Dashrath P. Bundela; wherein one of the grounds for quashing FIR has been held to be that such first information or complaint had been lodged by way of counter blast to the petition filed by the petitioners under the Hindu

Marriage Act ; however, in the opinion of this Court, it is common experience that the complaints/first information reports of dowry harassment are ordinarily not filed at the first stage of marital discord. Initially the parties, at least the wife and her relatives, try to come to terms with the husband and his relatives for the sake of her future. The main reasons for the same is the stigma attached to divorced lady in the society and her financial dependence on the husband. When all efforts at reconciliation fail or when the husband moves the Court for dissolution of marriage and it becomes clear that the marriage has irrevocably broken down, does the wife and her relatives venture to take recourse to the law? In this view of the matter, it is not appropriate to draw adverse inference against the wife, if she files complaint or lodges FIR, after filing of petition for dissolution of the marriage by the husband and the proceedings, cannot be quashed on aforesaid ground alone.

Aforesaid view is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi 2007 AIR SCW 5933, wherein it has been observed that no adverse inference can be drawn against wife for filing the complaint of dowry harassment after six months of leaving her matrimonial home and after the husband had filed a petition for divorce because such complaints of dowry harassment are ordinarily filed after all attempts at reconciliation have failed and it is obvious that there is no future of the relationship.

Further, there is also no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are omnibus in nature. It is clear from the first information report that specific allegations have been leveled and the role of each petitioners has been clearly defined. Where demand for dowry and harassment in the matrimonial home is a common refrain and everyday occurrence, it would be too much to expect the victim to memorize the exact time and date of each of such incidents; therefore, where specific role played by each accused has been mention in the FIR, failure to mention exact time and date of each of such instances, would be inconsequential.

The cases of Preeti Gupta and Prashant Sharma are distinguishable on facts.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, the Court is of the view that there is no ground for quashing this first information report.

Consequently, this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. invoking inherent powers of the Court is dismissed.