No Newly Married Wife Would Like To Ruin Her Matrimonial Home Until & Unless She Is Harassed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Quash 498A FIR

Observing that no newly married wife would like to ruin her matrimonial home unless she is harassed, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws.

“It is pertinent to mention that FIR has been lodged only within 08 months of marriage and no newly married wife would like to ruin her matrimonial home until and unless she is harassed or subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry,” said Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal.

The court said it cannot be said that allegations made are false or baseless, adding the defence cannot be looked into by this court at the initial stage of criminal proceedings.

"It is also settled position of law that under section 482 of Cr.P.C., this court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of F.I.R.," it said further.

The court was hearing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for the quashing of the FIR filed under Section 498-A, 294, 323, 506 of the IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on allegations of harassment and torture immediately after her wedding.

The woman and the accused husband solemnized their marriage in 2021, and the next day, the husband's grandfather passed away. It has been alleged that, on that account, her husband and in-laws started torturing her by saying that she had brought misfortune to their house.

They also started torturing her for not bringing sufficient dowry and asked her to bring Rs.5 lakhs from her parents as dowry, it has been alleged. She was also beaten by her husband on several occasions, instigated by her in-laws, the woman alleged.

The counsel for the applicant's husband and in-laws argued that the woman and the accused husband were married only 8 months ago before the filing of the complaint.

In the FIR, no specific date, time and incident has been mentioned to prove the act of harassment or torture amounting to cruelty with wife, he submitted. It was further argued that after marriage, the woman did not live even for a period of 30 days with the husband and she is not of good nature as “she is quarrelsome.”

After considering the submissions and material available in the case diary, the court held that "specific case" has been disclosed against the applicants and no veiled object appears implicating the applicants falsely.

“On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R, it is apparent that specific overt acts are alleged against all the applicants. Even otherwise when investigation is still under way, it cannot be said that mere casual references of the names of the applicants in matrimonial dispute without allegations of active involvement have been made,” it said.

Observing that Section 482 CrPC casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court, the bench said it is settled preposition of law that powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is very wide but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious.

Rejecting the defence that applicants have been falsely implicated as the woman is of a "quarrelsome nature", the Court said their defence cannot be considered in this petition when the investigation is yet to be completed by the police.

"At this preliminary stage, it cannot be concluded that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the F.I.R have a truth of ring or not or whether ingredients of the offences alleged are made out or not," the court said while dismissing the petition.

Case Title: S & Ors v. State of MP & Ors

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 81

Appearance: Advocate Sachin Gupta for Applicant

Advocate Satyalpal Chadal for State.

Advocate Amit Dubey for Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order