FIR Not Counterblast To Divorce Petition If Woman Lodges Complaint After Realizing That Her In-laws Have Gone To Such Extent Where Reconciliation Is Not Possible: MP HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash an FIR registered under section 498A IPC and observed that the FIR cannot be said to be a counterblast to petition for divorce if daughter-in-law decides to lodge complaint about cruelty meted out to her after realizing that her in-laws have gone to such an extent where reconciliation is not possible.
The High Court was considering an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all other consequential proceedings arising out of it.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia said, “If wife maintains patience and silence with solitary intention to save her matrimonial life, then it cannot be said that it was her weakness. On the contrary, it shows her sincerity towards her marital life."
Advocate Raj Kumar Shrivastava represented the Applicants while Public Prosecutor Anjali Gyanani represented the respondent/State.
The applicants had brought it to the Court’s notice that earlier one application was filed seeking similar relief but it was done without any authority from the applicants. Accordingly, by a separate order the same was dismissed as it was filed without any authority.
The applicants in this case are the husband and in-laws of the fifth respondent. The Respondent-wife had lodged an FIR alleging that in the year 2015 she got married to applicant No.1. Her father had given cash amount of Rs.11,00,000, apart from household articles. After one year of her marriage, she gave birth to one girl child. Thereafter, the applicants started expressing their anguish by alleging that they were not satisfied with the dowry given by her father.The wife was asked to bring an additional amount of Rs 5 lakh in cash and a Honda car. The wife approached her parents and the police machinery, still was being continuously abused and was asked to bring additional dowry.
Challenging the FIR, the applicants submitted that for prosecuting near and dear relatives of husband, allegations must be specific and clear. Vague and omnibus allegations are not sufficient to prosecute them. It was also submitted that the applicant No.1 had instituted a petition for grant of divorce and only thereafter the FIR was lodged by way of counterblast.
The Bench observed that it cannot be said that merely because one of the applicants is the sister of Mother-in-law of the respondent-wife, therefore, she cannot be presumed to be interfering in the marital life of respondent.
Considering that there were specific allegations in the FIR, the Bench said, “Therefore, it is clear that applicants No.3 and 5 who are real sisters are interfering in the family affairs of each other's family and prima facie treating their daughters-in-law with cruelty. The allegations against applicants are specific and clear. So far as submission made by counsel for applicants that FIR in question was lodged after institution of application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, the law is very clear in this regard.”
“If after realizing that her in-laws have gone to such an extent where reconciliation is not possible and then daughter-in-law decides to lodge an FIR complaining about cruelty meted out to her, then it cannot be said that said FIR is a counterblast to the petition for divorce”, the Bench said.
Furthermore, from filing of complaint by the applicant-husband in the court of Judicial Magistrate which was registered as Criminal Application, it was clear that the relationship of applicant-husband and respondent-wife was not cordial. The applicants were also out and out to criminally prosecute the respondent-wife and her family members.
The Bench further held, “...this Court can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence. Furthermore, this Court in exercise of powers under S..482 of Cr.P.C. (S.528 of BNSS) cannot conduct a roving enquiry to hold as to whether the allegations made in the FIR are correct or not.”
Thus, finding that the allegations made in the FIR were sufficient to prosecute the applicants, the Bench dismissed the application.
Cause Title: Dicky Ram Tiwari and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-GWL:21703)
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocate Raj Kumar Shrivastava
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Anjali Gyanani, Advocate B.K. Sharma