FIR Appears To Be Act Of Wreaking Vengeance: Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes Case Registered U/S.498A IPC Against Husband, In-Laws
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 376, 323, 294, 506, 34 & 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against a man and his family members after noting that the complaint lodged by the complainant-wife appeared to be an act of wreaking vengeance on the accused/petitioners, only as a counterblast to the civil cases.
The Petition before the Indore Bench of the High Court was filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 376, 323, 294, 506, 34 & 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the subsequent proceedings.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar said, “...this Court is satisfied that petitioner no.1 and his family members have been falsely implicated in the criminal case due to matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and his wife, the respondent no.2 herein, and the continuation of trial against them would only amount to misuse of the process of the Court.”
Advocate Abhijeet Dube appeared for the Petitioners while Government Advocate Raghav Shrivastava appeared for the Respondents.
The aforesaid FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent wife alleging that she was harassed by the petitioners, who committed the aforesaid offences against her as she was married to petitioner husband. The FIR was lodged almost after one year of the marriage. As per the FIR, their love marriage was solemnized in the year 2020, as both of them were working as teachers in Engineering College.
It was alleged that the complainant’s side spent more than Rs 10 lakh in the marriage, however, soon after the marriage, the family members of the petitioner husband started harassing the respondent wife for not bringing the adequate dowry. It was also alleged that the second respondent’s mother-in-law forcibly took her ornaments and kept with her. It was also alleged that the complainant was subjected to unnatural intercourse and her husband’s brother also started outraging her modesty, and used to abuse her. It was also alleged in the FIR that her husband also tore her clothes and took a video of her. It was also alleged that her husband was in contact with one Narendra Bariya and Sanjay Soni and he had already sold her to Sanjay for a sum of Rs.2 lakh, and claimed that she should start residing in their Aashram.
The Bench took note of the fact that apparently, there was delay of at least four months in lodging the FIR and apart from the verbal allegations, there was nothing on record to connect the petitioners with the offence. It was also noticed that the complainant herself is well educated, whereas, the petitioners are also qualified Engineers.
“Whereas a matrimonial dispute exists between the parties as the petitioner No.1 has already filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.2/complainant on 16.02.2021, whereas the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant on 04.03.2021, which appears to be an act of wreaking vengeance on the accused/petitioners, only as a counterblast to the civil cases”, the Bench said.
In view of such aspects, the Bench observed that the petitioner husband and his family members have been falsely implicated in the criminal case due to matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife and the continuation of trial against them would only amount to misuse of the process of the Court.
Allowing the petition, the Bench quashed the FIR in question.
Cause Title: Aman and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19771 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Abhijeet Dube
Respondents: Government Advocate Raghav Shrivastava, Advocate Madhur Tiwari