FIR Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because It Was Lodged By Wife After Husband Filed Divorce Petition: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that merely because FIR has been lodged after filing of divorce petition, the same cannot be quashed on the ground that it is by way of counter blast.
The Court observed that not providing food to a married woman on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand will amount to physical and mental harassment.
In a Petition filed by the Husband seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Court also said that in case of any false allegation of adultery, that allegation in itself would amount to cruelty.
The Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed “It is clear that merely because the FIR has been lodged after filing of divorce petition, the same cannot be quashed on the ground that it is by way of counter blast. The findings recorded by the civil court are not binding on the criminal court, and the criminal case has to be decided on the basis of allegations made therein. The degree of proof in civil case and criminal case are different. If the FIR lodged after filing of divorce petition is considered, then it can also be said that the respondent No.2 might be interested in saving her matrimonial life, therefore, she kept quiet and only when she realized that now her husband has gone to the extent where the possibility of reconciliation is bleak, then if she lodges the FIR for the misdeeds done to her than it cannot be said that it is by way of counter blast to the divorce petition."
Advocate Nishant Agrawal appeared for the Petitioners while G.A. KS Baghel appeared for the Respondents.
The Court relied on the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (SC 2015), which said that the quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible, if there is a prima facie case the question of which has to be examined by the trial court through evidence.
Discussing the second issue of whether the FIR was lodged by way of counterblast to the divorce petition filed by the Husband or not, the Court held, “Furthermore, even according to the applicants, the respondent No.2 had earlier lodged an FIR against the applicant No.1 on the allegations that he is alleging illicit relationship of respondent No.2 with another boy and, accordingly, he has taken away her mobile phone and has also changed the Id password of Gmail and Facebook account and has refused to return the same with a clear threatening that the mobile would be used as an evidence in the Court proceedings. Thus, it is clear that the relationship of applicants with respondent No.2 were not cordial and the applicant No.1 has gone to the extent of making allegations of adultery against the respondent No.2. If the allegation of adultery is found to be incorrect, then that allegation, by itself, would amount to cruelty.”
In the present case, the Respondent-wife lodged an FIR against the Husband for the offence under Section 354D of the IPC read with Section 66C of the IT Act on the allegations that the husband is in the habit of watching messages on her Facebook and also of Email Account. It was also alleged that the husband was using her Facebook ID and Gmail ID without her permission and consent. The family of the Husband also kept the mobile phone and original documents of the wife and refused to return them. They also used to keep the eatables hidden and kept her thirsty and hungry.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application.
Cause Title: XXXX and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Nishant Agrawal
Respondents: G.A. KS Baghel