SWAPNIL AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                    (2014) 7 S.C.R. 437


                 SWAPNIL AND OTHERS                             A
                              v.
             STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
            (Criminal Appeal No.· 1144 of 2014)

                        MAY 9, 2014
                                                                B
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
              KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498A and 506 Part II - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961- s.4 - Police complaint dated C
02.05.2012 filed by wife against husband and in-laws
(appellants) making allegations of dowry harassment, and of
criminal intimidation on 30. 04. 2012 - Charges framed
against appellants ulss. 498A, 506 Part II /PC and s.4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - High Court declined to D
exercise jurisdiction u/s. 482 CrPC for quashing the
proceedings - On appeal, held: The wife was living separately
since April, 2011 and hence, no question of any beating by
the appellants as alleged by her - Even application filed by
first appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights having E
been withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the wife was not interested
to live together, it is difficult to believe that there was still a
demand for dowry on 30. 04. 2012 coupled with criminal
intimidation - A/legations vague and bereft of the details as
to the place and the time of the incident - Materials before F
Judicial Magistrate not sufficient for presuming that appellants
committed offence under the charged Sections - Sessions
Court and High Court missed these crucial points while
considering the petition filed by appellants u/s.397 and s.482
CrP~ respectively - Veiled object to harass the appellants - G
Impugned prosecution wholly unfounded - To secure the
ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the process of the
criminal court, charges framed against the appellants quashed
- Appellants discharged - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- s.482.
                             437                                 H
     438      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A     The first appellant filed an application under Section
  9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of
  conjugal rights against his wife, the second respondent.
  During pendency of the proceedings, the second
  respondent, on 07 .09.2011, lodged a police complaint
B against the appellants and others, whereafter the parties
  were called before the Police Station and "suggested to
  rehabilitate their domestic life by court proceeding."

       Subsequently however, the first appellant withdrew
  the application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu
C Marriage Act, 1955, since according to the first appellant
  the second respondent was not inclined to resume
  cohabitation. It was thereafter, the police complaint dated
  02.05.2012 leading to the impugned prosecution was filed
  by the second respondent, on which FIR dated 02.05.2012
D under Section 498A, 506 and 34 of IPC was registered. It
  was alleged in the complaint that two months after her
  marriage with the first appellant, the appellants and the
  sister of the first appellant started demanding dowry. In
  the complaint dated 02.05.2012, there was also a grave
E allegation of intimidation to kill on 30.04.2012.

        The Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the
    appellants. Revision petition filed by the appellants before
    the Sessions Court was dismissed. By the impugned
F · order, the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction
    under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings
    and charges framed against the appellants under Section
    498A, 506 Part II IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry
    Prohibition Act, 1961.
·G         Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD:1. If the intervening developments and the two
  complaints dated 7-9-2011 and 2-5-2012 are analysed
  carefully, it can be seen that except for the improvement
H with regard to the alleged intimidation on 30.04.2012, the
       SWAPNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                   439

1
allegations 1n the earlier complaint dated ·07.09.2011 are A
exactly the same. After the. second respondent lodged
the complaint on 07.09.2011, the same was duly enquired.
into and it was cl(lsed stating that the dispute is actually ·
between the families which are to be otherwise settled in
legal proceedings. If there are such differences between B
families which are to be settled in legal proceedings, h,ow
such differences would constitute and give rise to a
successful prosecution under Sections 498A or 506 IPC
or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is
the cruciatqu~stion. [Paras 8, 10) (444-A,:B, D-F]            c
         2. The second respondent has been lwing separately
    since April, 2011and hence, there is no question of any
    beating by the appellants as alleged by her. The
    relationship having got strained ever since April, 2011,
    even appl\cation for restitution of conjugal rights having D
    been withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the second respondent
    was not interested ·to live together, it is difficult to believe
    that there is still a demand for dowry on 30.04.2012
    coupled with criminal intimidation. The allegations are
    vague and bereft of the details as to the place and the E
    time of the incident. The materials before the Judicial
     Magistrate First Class, are not sufficient to form an
     opinion that there is ground for· presuming that the
    accused appellants have committed the offence under the
    charged Sections. The Sessions Court and the High F
    Court missed these ·crucial points while considering the
     petition filed by the appellants under Section 397 and
    Section 482 of the Cr.PC respectively. The veiled object
     behind the lame prosecution is apparently to harass the
    appellants. Hence, the impugned prosecution is wholly G
     unfounded. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice and
     for preventing abuse of the process of the criminal court,
     the charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate against the
     accused appellants are quashed. The accused appellants
     are discharged. [Para 11) (444-G-H; 445-A-D]                    H
     440       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 7 S.C.R.

A        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
     No. 1144 of 2014.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2013 of the
     High Court of M.P. at Indore in MCRC No. 3300 of 2013.
B          Sunil Kumar Jain for the Appellants.

           Vijay Panjwani, Madhu R. Panjwani for Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C          KURIAN, J.: 1. Leave granted.

           2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated
     02.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
      Bench at Indore. As per the impugned order, the High Court
D    declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
      'Cr.PC') for quashing the proceedings and charges framed
     against the appellants under Section 498A, 506 Part II of the
     Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to' as
E    'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The
     appellants 2 and 3 are his father and mother respectively. The
     Respondent No. 2 is the wife of the first appellant. She lodged
     a complaint with Mahila Thana, Indore Police Station on which
     FIR No. 50 dated 02.05.2012 under Section 498A, 506 and
F    34 of IPC was registered. It was alleged in the complaint that
     the marriage between the first appellant .and second
     respondent was performed on 24.06.2009 and after two
     months of the marriage, the appellants and the sister of the first
     appellant started demanding dowry. It is seen from Annexure-
     P3-application filed by the first appellant on 14.07.2011 under
G    Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution
     of conjugal rights that the second respondent had left the
     matrimonial house on 23.04.2011 and thereafter she had not
     gone back. On 23.05.2011, a lawyer notice had also been
     served on the second respondent which was replied on
rl   02.06.2011. During the pendency of the proceedings for
    SWAPNIL v. STATE Of MADHYA PRADESH                        441
                 [KURIAN, J.]
restitution of conjugal rights; the second respondent, on            A
07.09.2011, lodged a complaint before, Mahila Thana, Indore
Police Station raising allegations against the appellants, the
maternal uncle, maternal aunt and the sister of the first
appellant. Paragraph .4 of the Qomplaint -Annexure-P4 reads
as follows:                                                          B
   . "4. The accused persons yesterday on 06.09.2011 having
     common intent collectively came to my parental house and
     while hurling abuses as Madarchod, Bahanchod etc. said
     that if you want life of yotir mother, father, brother and sister C
     then you come within one month with Rs.1 lac cash balance
     5 tola gold, Wagner Car which is purchased after your
     marriage and money for Maruti car otherwise your mother-
     father, sister and broth.er will be kidnapped and they will
     be killed. They gave threat to take over possession on my
      house and said that what wrong you have caused to U$ by D
     sending copies in police in reply of our notice, you do not
     know us yet. When your mother, father, brother and sisters"
     would be sent behind jail in false allegations then see govt.
     job of your father will be loosed and-you would start begging
      on road and gave threat that do not dare to go in police, E
      nobody would give evidence against us in colony because
      we have approach with big leaders and officers and
      gundas elements. If you go in police then proceeding will
      be done against you not against us."·
                                                                       F
      3. Annexure-PS is the Record of Proceedings dated
12.12.2011 when parties were called before Mahila. Police
Station. The same is extracted below:              ·
     "Sir;
                                                                      G
     In connection with enquiry of refe~ence application both the
     parties appeared in women police station and statement
     of both were recorded which are enclosed with enquiry.
     Applicant told that her husband Swapnil does not do any
     work/business and other members of in-laws house by              H
     442       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

 A         putting demand of dowry cause physical and mental
           harassment. Let family counseling be done with husband
           so that domestic life may remain peaceful.

           Non applicant told in his statement that my domestic life
           could not run peacefully due to intervention of members of
 B
           parental house of Kirti.

           Family counseling of both parties was done. There are
           certain family differences between both the parties hence
           both the parties were suggested to rehabilitate their
 c         domestic life by court proceeding.

           Report is submitted in your goodself."
          4. The first appellant on 16.04.2012 withdrew the
     application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
., Q 1 955, since according to the first appellant the second
     respondent was not inclined to resume cohabitation. It was
     thereafter, the complaint dated 02.05.2012 leading to the
     impugned prosecution was filed by the second respondent. She
     also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of
   E Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 17.05.2012. It
     seems another application under Section 125 of Cr.PC was
     also filed by her.
         5. The gist of the complaint dated 02.05.2012 reads as
 F follows:
           "... On 30.04.2012 they said if you do not fulfill our demand
           then we would kill you, thus my husband, father in law,
           mother in law and sister in law gave threat for life on the
           issue of demand of 10 tola gold, maruti car and 1 lac
 G         rupees cash in dowry and have subjected me on physical
           and mental harassment now I have been harassed from
           cruelty of members of in laws house and I do not want to
           enter into any compromise rather I want legal proceeding .
              •
 H
    SWAPNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                      443
                  [KURIAN, J.]
    6. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Magistrate,       A
Indore fr;:lmed the following charges:
    "I, Sarmesh Singh Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore
    hereby frame following charge against you Anil S/o
    Ramdas Rio 73 Laxmipuri Colony, Indore:
                                                                     B
      1.    You being husband of complainant Kirti subjected
            her to mental and physical torture and harassment
            from 24.06.2009 to 30.04.2012 in 73 Laxmipuri
            Colony Indore, making illegal demand of
            Rs.1,00,000/-, car -and 10 tola gold as dowry and C
            by beating her caused cruelty?

      2.    You on 30.04.2012 with intention to intimidate
            complainant Kirti gave threat to cause her death,
            as such by intimidating her caused criminal . D
            intimidation?                    ·

     • 3.   You being husband of complainant Kirit put illegal
            demand of Rs.1,00,000/-, car and 1O tola gold as
            dowry on various intervals from 24.06.2009. to
            30.04.2012 from complainant Kirti and her                E
            relatives?
     By doing such you have committed offence which is
     punishable under section 498A, 506 Part-2, IPC and
     section 4 of Dowry "Prohibition Act, which is in my             F
     cognizance. I by this report order that you be tried in above
     mentioned crimes.'"
      7."The appellants filed Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2013
 before the Sessions Court wfiich was dismissed by Order
 dated 14.03.2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. It . G
·is significant to note th~t even according to the learned
 Additional Sessions Judge "it is possible that accused Swapnil
 was taking care of his wife ... ".
     8. If the intervening
                   •,
                           developments referred to above and        H
    444      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A the two complaints are analysed carefully, it can be seen that
   except for the improvement with regard to the alleged
   intimidation on 30.04.2012, the allegations in the earlier
   complaint dated 07.09.2011 are exactly the same. As a matter
 • of fact, there was an allegation with regard to criminal
B intimidation in the complaint dated 07.09.2011 as well, as can
   be seen from the extracted portion of the complaint. However,
   in the complaint dated 02.05.2012, there is a grave allegation
   on intimidation to kill, made on 30.04.2012.

       9. The first appellant and second respondent had in fact',
C solemnized their marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir on 16.06.2007
  privately, as they were stated to be in love with each other for
  sometime. Thereafter only, in the presence of the family
  members, marriage was solemnized on 24.06.2009.

D       1b. It has to be seen that admittedly the second respondent
   has been living separately since April, 2011. Thereafter, she
   had lodged a complaint on 07.09.2011 before the very same
  police station. The same was duly enquired into and it was.
  closed stating that the dispute is actually between the families..
E which are to be otherwise settled in legal proceedings. If there
  are such differences between families which are to be settled:
  in legal proceedings, how such differences would constitute and·
  give rise to a successful prosecution under Sections 498A or
  506 IPC or under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
F is the crucial question.
                                                                   '
        11. The second respondent has been living separately<
  since April, 2011and hence, there is no question of any beating
  by the appellants as alleged by her. The relationship having got.
  strained ever since April, 2011, even application for restitution\
G of conjugal rights having been withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as th~
  second respondent was not interested to live together, it ii~/
  difficult' to believe that there is still a demand for dowry on
  30.04.2012 coupled with criminal intimidation. The allegations'
  are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and theUmei
H of the incident. We had called for the records and have gone;
     SWAPNIL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                      445
                  [KURIAN, J.]
through the same. The materials before the learned Judicial          A
 Magistrate First Class, Indore are not sufficient to form an
 opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused
 appellants have committed the offence under the charged
 Sections. The Additional Sessions Court and the High Court
 missed these crucial points while considering the petition filed    B
 by the appellants under Section 397 and Section 482 of the
 Cr.PC respectively. The veiled object behind the lame
·prosecution is apparently to harass the appellants. We are,
 hence, of the view that the impugned prosecution is wholly
 unfounded. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice and for         c
 preventing abuse of the process of the criminal court, the
 charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore
 in Criminal Case No. 10245 of 2012 against the accused
 appellants are quashed. The accused appellants are
 discharged. However, we make it clear that nothing contained        D
 in this judgment shall have a bearing on any proceedings
 between the parties regarding their matrimonial disputes
 before the Family Court, since our observations are only for the
 purpose of this judgment.

     12. The appeal is allowed as above.                             E

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                               Appeal allowed.