Rehana Khan @ Ram Kumari and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Hon''ble Shri Justice G.S. Solanki

Petitioners knocked the door of this Court by filing the petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR lodged against them by respondent No. 2 as well as quashing the criminal proceedings in R.T. No. 24/2012 pending before the JMFC, Bhopal. It is undisputed that respondent No. 2 Smt. Zeba was married to petitioner No. 2 Abrar Khan on 24/10/2008 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. The parties are governed by Hanafi School of Mohammedan Law. It is also undisputed that initially once respondent No. 2 lodged the report against petitioners, the matter was sorted out before panch witnesses and an agreement was executed by respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 (Annexure A-1) thereafter, the matter was referred to Para marsh Kendra. Proceedings of Para marsh Kendra are Annexures A-2 and A-4. It is pleaded that respondent No. 2 left the house of petitioner No. 2 on 20/08/2010 and since then she is living in her parental house. Petitioner No. 2 tried his level best to bring her back to his house but he remain unsuccessful in aforesaid effort therefore, ultimately he executed a divorce deed on 25/05/2011 in presence of two witnesses. Copy of aforesaid deed is Annexure A-5. It is further pleaded that petitioner No. 2 communicated the aforesaid divorce deed to respondent No. 2 alongwith the cheques of amount of Rs. 3,000/-and Rs. 51,000/-respectively against mehar and maintenance of iddat period on 30/05/2011 by registered post. Copies of cheques are Annexures A-6, A-7 and copy of receipt of registered post is Annexure A-8. However, the cheques returned unserved to petitioner No. 2. It is pleaded that after five months of execution of aforesaid communication, respondent No. 2 lodged a false report against the petitioners in regard to the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406, 506/ 34 of IPC and section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at police station, Bhopal and police registered the crime No. 76/2011 under the aforesaid sections. Copy of FIR is Annexure A-9. Petitioner No. 1 is mother of petitioner No. 2. She is a govt. servant and residing separately with her husband. After the investigation, petitioners were charge sheeted before the JMFC, Bhopal hence, this petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 lodged a false report against the petitioners after receiving the copy of divorce deed alongwith the demand draft of amount of mehar and maintenance for the iddat period. It is further submitted that initially in the proceedings which were conducted by the Para marsh Kendra the fact of demand of dowry was not raised before the said Kendra. It is submitted that since divorce was already took place before lodging the FIR, in these circumstances, there is no prima facie case made out against these petitioners. It is submitted that if criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the JMFC, Bhopal remain continue the same will be misuse of the process of the Court therefore, he prays for quashment of FIR as well as quashment of criminal proceedings in R.T. No. 24/2012. He buttress his arguments placing reliance on 2012 (1) MPHT 196 Dashrath P. Bundela and others Vs. State of M.P. and another, Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. State of Punjab and Others, Anand Shrivastava and others Vs. State of M.P. and Kailash Chandra Maheshwari and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others,

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and State oppose the aforesaid contention of the petitioners and submit that petitioner No. 2 created a false document regarding divorce deed and same has not been served to respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that so called amount of mehar and amount of maintenance for the period of iddat has not been paid to respondent No. 2 and the same has been withdrawn by the petitioner No. 2. For this purpose he filed Annexures R-2 and R-9 which shows that registered post was returned unserved because petitioner No. 2 himself mentioned the wrong address on document of registered post. It is submitted that demand draft of the so called amount of mehar and maintenance for the iddat period has already been cancelled by the petitioners. It is submitted that the fact of divorce by husband cannot be accepted unless it is proved by the evidence. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has placed reliance on Farida Bano Vs. Kamruddin, which was decided on the basis of pronouncement of Apex Court judgment in AIR 2002 SC 3551 Shamim Ara Vs. State of U.P.

I have perused the entire material placed before me. No doubt the First Information Report is lodged by respondent No. 2 (wife) on 24/10/2011. The main contention raised on behalf of petitioners is that she lodged the false report as a counter blast of fact that she has been divorced by petitioner No. 2. It is well settled that if a wife lodged the report alleging that she was subjected to cruelty after filing the case of divorce against her then it is an afterthought allegation of cruelty but in this case it is disputed that respondent No. 2 lodged the report after receiving the divorce deed. It is on record that petitioner No. 2 intentionally wrote a false address of respondent No. 2 therefore, the deed returned undelivered. It is also on record that so called amount of mehar and maintenance of iddat period already made cancelled by petitioner No. 2. In these circumstances, it is not the case wherein respondent No. 2 lodged the First Information Report as a counter blast of divorce petition. Since the plea of divorce taken by petitioner No. 2 is a question of fact, same cannot be accepted without proof. However, there was some dispute between the parties before this incident but all these incidents are already stated in FIR alongwith the fact that the petitioners demanded Rs. 5 lacs on 20/10/2011 and on refusal they abused and threatened to respondent No. 2. During investigation there is a prima facie evidence collected in regard to the aforesaid fact. In these circumstances, fact of this case is altogether different to the fact of cases relied on by learned counsel on behalf of petitioners. This is the case wherein prima facie evidence is on record in regard to alleged offence thus, I am of the view that it is not fit case for quashment of FIR as well as quashment of criminal proceedings in R.T. No. 24/2012 pending before the JMFC, Bhopal. Resultantly, the petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.