Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application for quashment of FIR for offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., held that the FIR could not be quashed merely on the grounds that it was a counterblast to a divorce petition. The Court held that the jurisdictional issues and the residence of the respondent No. 2 need to be determined based on trial evidence. The Court opined that “mental cruelty would continue even after the ousting or leaving her matrimonial house and residing in her parental home. “
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the applicants filed an application under Section 482 of CrPC to quash an FIR registered at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur for offences under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The charges were framed and challenged by the applicants through Criminal Revision which was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur on 12-03-2024. The applicants argued that the entire cause of action occurred in Indore. It was claimed the FIR was a counter-blast to a divorce petition filed by applicant 1. It was contended that respondent 2-complainant, does not reside in Kareli but in Indore, which is supported by a service report.
Moot Point
-
Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of counter blast to the petition for divorce?
-
Whether the FIR has been lodged with a malafide intentions only because of the facts that father of respondent 2 is a practicing lawyer at Kareli, District Narsinghpur?
-
Can the FIR be quashed on the ground that police have no jurisdiction to register the same?
-
Whether the FIR is valid given the dispute about the complainant’s residence?
-
Whether the mental and physical cruelty as alleged under Section 498-A of IPC be considered to continue even after the wife has left the matrimonial home?
Court’s Analysis
Counter Blast to Divorce Petition
The Court referred to Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, (2007) 12 SCC 369, where the Supreme Court held that lodging an FIR after attempts to save the failed marriage, even post a divorce petition, does not justify quashing the FIR as a counter-blast. The Court cited Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 775 and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528 and affirmed that decisions in criminal cases are not binding on civil cases and vice versa.
The Court asserted that criminal and civil proceedings are independent, and the pendency of a civil case does not nullify criminal proceedings. The Court reiterated that the determination of residence and allegations of cruelty are matters for trial. The Court further stated that the mere fact that the father of the respondent 2 is a practicing lawyer does not affect the legitimacy of the FIR. The court must consider the allegations within the FIR, not the complainant’s family status. The Court emphasised that allegations made in the FIR must be considered in their entirety, and the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
Jurisdiction
The Court asserted that the issue as to whether respondent 2 resides in Kareli or Indore is a matter of defense to be proven during the trial. The Court referred to Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 384, where the Supreme Court ruled that mental cruelty can persist even after the wife has left the matrimonial home, thus supporting the jurisdiction of the police where the wife resides post-separation.
Continuing Offence and Venue
The Court opined that cruelty under Section 498-A includes mental suffering, which can continue at the parental home, giving jurisdiction to the local police station. The Court ruled that mental cruelty can persist even after the wife leaves the matrimonial house and resides in her parental home, especially when the separation is due to dowry demands and associated mistreatment. The Court emphasised that the enduring psychological distress experienced by the wife constitutes a form of cruelty, which warrants legal recognition. Consequently, the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Police Station in the wife’s current residence is valid for investigating the matter. The Court further stated that the transfer of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Kareli further supports the jurisdiction of Kareli Police.
“If a married woman is turned out of her matrimonial house on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, then the wife might be residing in her parental home and physical cruelty might have come to an end but the separation on the account of demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to the wife would continue to haunt her which would amount to mental cruelty.”
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the allegations made in the FIR must be tested in the trial, considering the distinct nature of civil and criminal proceedings and the continuous nature of mental cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Kareli police based on the ongoing impact of alleged cruelty and relevant financial transactions and dismissed the present application for quashment of the FIR.
[Tamish Saluja v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 3367, order dated 16-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma, Counsel for the Applicants
Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Govt. Advocate, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
