‘FIR lodged by wife after knowing that husband is going to marry another lady’: HC discharges man booked U/S 498A IPC

  

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of  Justice Sanjay Dwivedi while observing that the wife lodged an FIR against her Husband after coming to know that he is going to marry another lady, discharged the husband booked for the charges for the offenses punisahble under under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. (Abhishek Pandey @ Ramji Pandey and others v.s  State of Madhya Pradesh and Others)

The Bench noted that the wife had alleged those incidents, which had occurred two years prior to the date of lodging the FIR and the same was lodged after the husband filed suit for seeking divorce decree.

The court held, "The FIR is nothing but an afterthought and counter-blast to the suit filed by the husband for seeking decree of divorce. Charges framed are liable to be quashed."

Facts of the case

Husband and wife got married in the year 2015, but with effect from 2016, the wife started living separately as the relations between them were not cordial and there was some dispute between them.

Thereafter, when it became almost impossible to settle the disputes, the applicant no.1 (Husband) filed a suit in 2019 seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act.

When the notice was issued to the wife, she lodged a complaint with Police Station, Kotwali, Mandla District Mandla and after enquiring about the complaint, the police registered the offence against the accused persons under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

When the matter reached the Court, the counsel for the applicants moved an application before the Court below under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them, which was ultimately rejected.

The applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by Special Judge, (Atrocities) Mandla framing charge against the applicant no.1 under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3(1) (z), 3(1)(zc) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and against the applicant nos. 2 and 3 under Section 498-A of IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3(1) (s), 3(1)(z) and Section 3(1) (zc) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

 

Contrention of the Parrties

It was contended by counsel for the applicants that though the complainant originally belonged to ‘Gond’ community, which comes under Scheduled Caste category but after marriage with the applicant no.1, she did not remain to be in SC category and as such, cases relating to the offences of SC/ST Act are not made out against the applicants. The court below rejected the application mentioning therein that at the stage of framing of charges, the court has very limited scope of interference and in view of the material placed by the prosecution, even if suspicion arises regarding false implication, the accused cannot be discharged.

The counsel appearing for the applicants criticized the order passed by the Court below and submits that in view of the existing factual position, admittedly after living separately from the applicant no1, the non-applicant no.2 has not made any report to the police and has also not made any complaint with regard to demand of dowry nor attributed anything against the applicants that they have committed any offence relating to SC/ST Act.

According to learned counsel for the applicants, there are several judgements of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court that under such a circumstance, the FIR can be quashed and accused can be discharged and, therefore, he submits that the court below has not considered this aspect, therefore, he is asking that the order of the court below deserves to be set aside and the applicants be discharged from the offences registered against them. He has placed reliance upon a decision reported in (2013)9 SCC 293 Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi).

The counsel appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicants and supported the order passed by the court below, saying that on the basis of the material available, the court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

Courts Observation & Judgment

The court after perusing the records of the case noted that nothing had come to indicate that from the date of living separately till the date of lodging the FIR, any complaint had ever been made by the wife to any of the authorities or to the police attributing against the applicants that they ever demanded any dowry or created any act which comes under the provisions of SC/ST Act or any offence was made under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court taking note of the the FIR further observed, it is clear that the same was made on January 9, 2020 whereas the husband/applicant no.1 had filed a suit for seeking decree of divorce on May 7, 2019 before the Family Court.

"It is also clear from the statement that the non-applicant no.2 (wife) after coming to know that applicant no.1 (husband) was going to get married with a lady namely Bhuvneshwari then only she lodged the report to the police and made several allegations of dowry and also of offences relating to the Atrocities Act."

The court after pursing the records noted that the FIR had been lodged by the wife only to harass her husband and his family members.

Thje bench remarked, “Considering the law as has been laid down by the High Court in number of cases, relying upon the view taken by the Supreme Court, I find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case also, the FIR has been lodged by the non-applicant no.2/wife only to harass the applicant no.1 and his family members. Her statement filed along with the charge-sheet clearly reflects that she approached the police only because applicant no.1 was going to marry another lady. The allegations made against the applicants in the report lodged to the police and the statement given by her were relating to the incidents that occurred almost two years prior to the date of FIR.”

The bench allowing the criminal revision remarked, "She has also not disclosed and not stated when she started living separately from 2016, she did not lodge any report to the police but only after coming to know about filing of the suit and fact of marriage of the non-applicant no.2 with another lady, the complaint/FIR was lodged to the police. It can be easily presumed that it is nothing but an after-thought and the allegations made in the FIR are improbable and do not constitute the offence as alleged against the applicants.

Therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below framing charges against the applicants is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside for the reason that the Court below did not consider the material aspect which has been discussed by this Court hereinabove. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicants under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. The applicants are discharged from the offences registered vide SCATR No. 38/2020. Ex consequentia, the criminal revision is allowed.”

Read Judgment ; 

 

source ; /www.latestlaws.com/

Social media is bold.


Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  


    We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure