Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against a husband affirming that delay in filing the FIR by the wife in order to preserve her marriage does not discredit the allegations made by her.

The court, presided over by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, declined to quash the FIR pertaining to allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty, despite the contention that the allegations therein were belatedly raised. The court stated that “Merely because the wife did not lodge the FIR at the first instance and maintained silence in order to save her marital life, then it cannot be said that the allegations are afterthought. If the wife after realizing that her husband has crossed all the limits thereby closing the chances of reconciliation and if decides to lodge the FIR with regard to the cruelty meted out to her, then it cannot be said that the allegations made in the FIR are false or are afterthought.”

The case involved an application filed by the husband/ applicant  under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking to quash an FIR. The FIR, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act, was lodged by the wife (respondent no.2) against the husband and her brother-in-law and his wife.

According to the allegations outlined in the FIR, respondent no.2 got married to Deepnarayan Pandey (husband) on July 11, 2016, following Hindu rites and rituals. She claimed that her parents had provided sufficient dowry during the marriage. However, tensions arose when, on June 10, 2021, her husband and the his brother and brother’s wife allegedly demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and a motorcycle. When she refused, she was reportedly subjected to verbal and physical abuse, including assaults and derogatory name-calling, including being called a Bitch (Kameeni).

Further, the wife asserted that despite facing mistreatment, she continued to reside in her matrimonial home due to her two young children. However, the situation escalated on July 19, 2023, when she was again subjected to abuse and threats to her life, prompting her to seek refuge at her parental home. She also asserted that her children have been retained against her will by the husband and his family.

The wife’s claims were opposed by the husband and his family contending that it was filed as a retaliatory measure after the husband lodged a police complaint on July 20, 2023, whereas the FIR was filed by the wife on September 11, 2023. Additionally, it was argued that the allegations were false and aimed at influencing ongoing legal proceedings under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which deals with Judicial Separation, initiated by respondent no.2's husband.

The court, after meticulous consideration of the arguments presented, firstly determined the scope of judicial interference at the initial stage.

Drawing upon a plethora of legal precedents, including seminal judgments by the Supreme Court of India, the court said “Court can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence and this Court cannot conduct a mini trial at this stage to find out the correctness of the allegations.”

The court observed that the complaint filed by the husband of the respondent no.2 cannot be solely relied upon as definitive evidence at this stage of the proceedings. “…because at this stage this Court cannot hold that the allegations made in the complaint are correct. It is the question of defence liable to be proved by the applicant in the trial,” the court remarked.

Furthermore, addressing another aspect of the case, the court clarified its stance on the timing of the FIR in relation to the institution of an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband. It underscored that “merely because the FIR was lodged after the institution of the said application, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of counter blast.”

The court noted that “Since the allegations made against the applicants are specific and cannot be said to be vague, general and omnibus, therefore, no case is made out warranting interference.”

In furtherance, the court declined to quash the FIR and dismissed the husband’s application, affirming that the allegations, though belatedly reported, warranted due consideration.

 

Cause Title: Madhusudan Pandey v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC No 17374 of 2024]