LexSWAPNIL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2014) 7 S.C.R. 437 SWAPNIL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.· 1144 of 2014) MAY 9, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] A B 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as alleged by her - Even application filed by first appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights having E been withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the wife was not interested to live together, it is difficult to believe that there was still a demand for dowry on 30. 04. 2012 coupled with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 1allegations 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.