The Madhya Pradesh High Court while dismissing the petition observed that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry would certainly amount to mental harassment, punishable under section 498-A of IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Nitish Umariya and others.
The application under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed for quashing of FIR in Crime registered at Police Station Harda, District Harda for the offence under sections 498-A, 506, 34 of I.P.C read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that earlier respondent no 2 (wife) had lodged an FIR against the applicant No1(husband) for offence under section 354D of IPC read with section 66C of the Information Technology Act on the allegations that the husband of the respondent No 2 is in habit of watching messages of her Facebook and also of Email Account.
It was also alleged that husband of the respondent No.2 was using her Facebook id and Gmail id without her permission and consent. He was doing so by alleging that respondent No 2 is in a relationship with another person and he has proof of the same. On 1.7.2018 husband of the respondent No 2 kept her mobile phone with him and introduced the pattern lock and also changed the Id of Facebook and Gmail account which was supported by applicant No 2 Ashwini Umaria, who also alleged that now they would not return the mobile and the said mobile shall be produced in the court. Although respondent No 2 tried to change the Id Password of Gmail and Facebook account but since recovery mobile number was changed by her husband, therefore, she could not change the Gmail and Facebook ID. Her husband has also kept her original documents with him.
Accordingly, FIR was lodged with request to return of mobile phone, Gmail and Facebook account access as well as return of her mobile phone Oppo A57.
It is submitted that the applicant No 1 has also filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights by alleging that respondent No 2 is residing separately and she has left the house on 14.7.2018.
However, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that the application was later on withdrawn. Apart from the above case, multiple complaints were made by applicant No1 before the police authorities in which it was alleged that respondent No 2 is having a love affair with a boy, namely, Sarvesh Gupta. In spite of his best efforts to persuade the respondent No 2 to stop talking to the said boy, the respondent No2 gave threats of falsely implicating the applicants.
Finally, applicant No 1 filed a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and extra-marital relationship. On 20.8.2019 the applicant No 1 and respondent No 2 appeared before the Family Court and conciliation took place immediately. After conciliation, on very next day, i.e on 21.8.2019 respondent No 2 lodged an FIR for the offence under section 498-A, 506, 34 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after investigation have filed the charge-sheet.
Challenging the FIR lodged by respondent No 2, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that applicants No 2 to 5 are the family members against whom omnibus, vague and general allegations have been leveled. FIR is a counter blast to the allegations and complaints made by the applicant No 1. Earlier also, an FIR under section 354D of IPC and section 66 of the I.T Act was lodged in which no allegation of dowry was made and accordingly the impugned FIR dated 21.8.2019 is a by-product of deliberation and afterthought.
All the applicants are not living together and even according to the complaint, the respondent No 2 is residing separately from the applicants. Accordingly, it is submitted that the FIR lodged by the respondent No 2 may be quashed.
Accordingly, the Court opined that the allegations made in the FIR are specific against each and every applicant and by no stretch of imagination it can be termed as a vague, omnibus or general in nature.
The Court observed 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 cases and criminal cases 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.
“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 was not cordial and the applicant No 1 has gone to the extent of making allegations of adultery against respondent No 2.
If the allegation of adultery is found to be incorrect, then that allegation, by itself, would amount to cruelty.
Under these circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.