'Sheer Misuse': Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Criminal Case Filed By Wife Against Husband After 7 Years From Date Of Alleged Occurrence
While quashing a criminal case filed by the wife against the husband nearly seven years after the alleged crime of cheating and forgery occurred, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently taken the firm stand that no litigant can be allowed to misuse the process of courtThe single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhayankar also observed that it was hardly imaginable that the wife, who was a...
While quashing a criminal case filed by the wife against the husband nearly seven years after the alleged crime of cheating and forgery occurred, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently taken the firm stand that no litigant can be allowed to misuse the process of court
The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhayankar also observed that it was hardly imaginable that the wife, who was a senior bank manager, would wait for over seven years before she raised allegations of cheating by the husband in a transaction that involved the Bank where both of them were working at the relevant time.
“This court is of the considered opinion that the process of the court cannot be used to settle the personal scores of the private parties. The present case is apparently an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute, and the complainant wife cannot be allowed to keep the alleged offence in hibernation, for years together, only to be used it as a leverage over her husband and the other accused person, who are clearly at a disadvantage in contesting the case due to lapse of time”, the court noted while simultaneously adding that courts can only welcome serious litigants trying to get redressal for their genuine concerns.
While setting aside orders of framing charges against the petitioner-husband as well as the Bank Branch Manager who was arraigned as a co-accused, the bench sitting at Indore relied on Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) and Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd., (2008) to hold that the petitioners should be absolved of charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201 and 120-B of the IPC.
Though the delay in lodging the complaint wouldn’t adversely bring forth the question of limitation in this case, the court referred to Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) where the apex court held that unexplained inordinate delay can be considered as a 'very crucial factor' for quashing a criminal complaint.
Background & Further Reasoning
In the current case, according to the complainant-wife, on 13.01.2014, Rs 60,000/- was illegally debited from her account and credited in the account of the petitioner-husband. Later, when the charges were framed, along with the husband, the Bank Branch Manager was also implicated under Section 120-B.
“On perusal of the Charge sheet, this court is also of the considered opinion that the aforesaid transaction is being used by the complainant wife only as a tool to settle her personal score with the petitioner… whereas the co-accused Gokul Chand Meena is embroiled in their matrimonial dispute for signing the debit voucher more than seven years and seven months earlier”, the court opined about the plight of the branch manager.
According to the petitioner-husband, the FIR against him was only an ‘afterthought’ after the matrimonial relationship between him and the complainant turned sour in the course of time. The petitioner husband agreed that the alleged amount was credited to his account on the said date. However, the transaction arose from a plan to purchase a Maruti car by availing a loan. On the same day, a loan of nearly Rs 4.5 lakhs was sanctioned to the petitioner, for which the complainant wife had stood and signed as a Guarantor. Rs 60,000/- was transferred from the wife’s account to his account for the loan transaction since her account had an SMS facility, the petitioner's counsel tried to clarify. The said loan was taken under ‘Staff Vehicle Loan Scheme’ introduced by the Bank of India.
The court, after perusing the document on record pertaining to the car loan, pointed out that the complainant has signed as a guarantor on every page of such document on the alleged date of the crime’s occurrence. Even if she had any concerns regarding the allegedly fraudulent transaction with the husband as the beneficiary, she could have easily raised a complaint to the bank authorities in those circumstances, the court further opined.
“This court is of the considered opinion that after the complainant wife allowed the said car loan transaction to take place on 13.01.2014, and did not raise any objection at that time, she cannot be allowed to cry wolf after seven years and seven months of the said transaction. It is apparent that the complainant was well aware of the subtleties of this transaction all along but kept it to herself, only to be used in case any occasion arises, and, the occasion did arise when a matrimonial dispute took place between the parties as the complainant has already lodged cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and under Section 498-A of IPC”.
The fact that the police chose to file an FIR in a case of documentary evidence correlated to the dispute between a husband and wife, that too after seven years and seven months, clouds the veracity of the case, the court opined. After perusing the chargesheet, the court found that there has occurred an error in charging the petitioners with offences of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy.
After hearing the submissions, the court further noted that there is only a photocopy of the authority letter allegedly signed by the wife for the said transaction. On the other hand, the wife had chosen to assert that her signature in the said photocopy of the authority letter is forged. About this conundrum of admitting photocopy of original documents to evidence, the High Court remarked as below:
“It is also a trite law that a photocopy of the document is not admissible in evidence and thus, in the absence of the original authority letter dated 13.01.2014, it can never be found out whether it actually bore the signatures of the complainant, or they have been forged by the petitioner…”.
Accordingly, both the criminal revision petitions were allowed by the High Court.
Case Name: Raghvendra Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. And Gokul Chand Meena v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Revision No. 3036 Of 2023 & Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2023