Court: Supreme Court Of India
Bench: JUSTICE Jagdish Singh Khehar & S.A. Bobde
Pritam Ashok Sadaphule & Ors. Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. On19 March 2015
Law Point:
Section 498A — Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Quashing of FIR — Cruelty — Allegations levelled against in-laws by wife aimed at harassing the appellants except husband — They could not be held responsible for an offence under Section 498A, IPC.
JUDGEMENT
1. The present controversy arises out of a matrimonial alliance, between petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 both are highly educated. They were known to one other, whilst they were in the United Kingdom. Consequent upon the development of intimacy between them, they decided to get married. The families of both parties, are located in India. Whilst the family of petitioner No. 1 is at Mumbai, that of respondent No. 2 is in New Delhi.
2. The pleadings before this Court, as also, the orders appended thereto reveal, that the marriage between Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and Hima Pritam Sadaphule took place at Lalit Hotel, Connaught Place, New Delhi on 5.3.2005. The funds for the marriage, were stated to have been contributed, only by the parents of respondent No. 2. The factual position, insofar as the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, that needs to be noticed is, that the parents and relatives of petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule, did not participate in the above marriage. It is therefore apparent, that they were not agreeable to the matrimonial alliance.
3. It is also not a matter of dispute, that petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule, separated in October, 2009. Petitioner No. 1 initiated divorce proceedings in the United Kingdom, seeking permanent dissolution of the matrimonial alliance, with respondent No. 2. A Court in the United Kingdom, in the first instance, issued decree nisi on 9.5.2011, and thereafter, a final decree dated 21.6.2011. By the final decree, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and respondent No. 2 Hima Pritam Sadaphule, came to be dissolved.
4. Independent of the divorce proceedings initiated by petitioner No. 1 in the United Kingdom, respondent No. 2 also filed a divorce petition against petitioner No. 1 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before a Family Court (Additional District Judge-I, New Delhi District, Patiala House) in India. During the course of the above proceedings, it came to be held by the Family Court vide an order dated 22.9.2011, that the divorce proceedings conducted in the United Kingdom, were not binding, insofar as the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2, before the Family Court under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, were concerned.
5. A challenge was raised to the above order dated 22.9.2011, by petitioner No. 1, before the High Court of Delhi. The above challenge raised through CRP No. 1481 of 2011, was declined by the High Court, on 22.4.2013. It is also not a matter of dispute, that a special leave petition filed before this Court, against the order passed by the High Court, came to be dismissed on 26.8.2013.
6. It would be relevant to mention, that aggrieved with the behavior of petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule, respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule filed a complaint dated 9.9.2009 in the United Kingdom. The said complaint was however rejected by an order dated 20.8.2009, due to insufficient evidence, “at this time”. Besides the complaint, referred to hereinabove, respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule also sought an injunction in the United Kingdom, against petitioner No. l-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule. On account of the strained and distressing domestic relationship between the parties, she sought an order of restrain against him, from interfering in her affairs. A non-molestation order accordingly came to be passed on 1.6.2010 by a Court in the United Kingdom. By the aforesaid order, the Court in the United Kingdom passed a restraining order against petitioner No. 1, which was operative for a period of two years. The aforesaid non-molestation order, we are informed, has run out its course.
7. On 5.2.2010, respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule filed a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, in Delhi. On or around the same time, i.e., on 4.2.2010, respondent No. 2 filed another written complaint before the Station House Officer, Chembur Police Station, Chembur, Mumbai (in the State of Maharashtra). A copy of the aforesaid complaint, is not available on the record of this case, the same has been handed over to us during the course of hearing. It is taken on record, and marked as Annexure-A.
8. Based on Annexure-A, a first information report bearing No. 46/2010 was registered on 6.3.2010, at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Mumbai. It is essential to notice, that the allegations contained in the above first information report, were recorded in Marathi language. The written complaint made by respondent No. 2 on 4.2.2010 was however in English language. The first information report after recording the complaint made by respondent No. 2 in Marathi, made the following observations at the bottom thereof “my above complaint read over in Marathi and made to understand in Hindi”. Besides petitioner No. 1-Pritam Ashok Sadaphule, allegations were also levelled against the father, mother, brother and sister of petitioner No. 1, in the above complaint (dated 4.2.2010) and consequential first information report (dated 6.3.2010). Based on the allegations contained in the first information report dated 6.3.2010, a charge sheet was filed against all the above-mentioned relations of petitioner No. 1, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikroli (East), Mumbai, under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. The petitioners before this Court, assailed the aforesaid first information report dated 6.3.2010, by filing criminal writ petition No.3339 of 2010, before the High Court of Bombay. The prayer for quashing of the first information report dated 6.3.2010, and all orders passed in furtherance thereof, came to be declined by the High Court vide an order dated 1.8.2012. The instant petition for special leave to appeal, has been filed, to assail the above order dated 1.8.2012.
10. Leave granted.
11. It was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants, who comprise of the Pritam Ashok Sadaphule (the husband, of respondent No. 2), Ashok Baliba Sadaphule (the father, of appellant No. 1), Satwashila Ashok Sadaphule (the mother, of appellant No. 1), Pravin Ashok Sadaphule (the brother, of appellant No. 1) and Priti Ashok Sadaphule(the sister, of appellant No. 1), that repeated complaints on the same set of facts were being made , by respondent No. 2, aimed at harrassing the appellants. In this behalf, it was sought to be pointed out, that a complaint with the same set of facts was originally made by respondent No. 2 in the United Kingdom on 9.9.2009. As noticed above, the Court concerned declined to take any action thereon. Thereafter, a similar complaint was made before the Crime Against Women, Cell, Nanakpura, in Delhi on 5.2.2010. It was submitted, that no action was taken against the appellants by the Crime Against Women, Cell. Yet again, another complaint was made in Mumbai. On the basis of the last complaint, criminal proceedings have been initiated against them under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted, that these proceedings are liable to be quashed, because no action was taken, when on the same allegations, respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule, had approached the concerned authorities in the United Kingdom and in Delhi, India.
12. It was also sought to be pointed out, that based on the same set of facts, respondent No. 2 has initiated proceedings against the appellant No. 1 under the Protection of’ Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was submitted, that even though the other appellants before this Court, i.e. appellant Nos. 2 to 5 were also originally involved in the said proceedings, the names of appellant Nos. 2 to 5 came to be deleted. It was submitted, that the action initiated by respondent No. 2 is nothing, but a misuse of the jurisdiction of different Courts, to achieve her objective of harassing the appellants.
13. It was also the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants, that a perusal of the first information report would reveal, that only vague and omnibus allegations were levelled against appellant Nos. 2 to 5, and that, even if the factual position as has been depicted in the complaint, filed by respondent No. 2 is taken to be correct, no offence under Section 498A, of the Indian Penal Code, can be stated to have been made out against appellant Nos. 2 to 5.
14. In response to the contentions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the appellants, our attention was invited to the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 with the Station House Officer, Chembur Police Station, Chembur, Mumbai, (which has been taken on the record of this case as Annexure-A). It was the contention of the learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2, that there were serious allegations in the written complaint filed by respondent No. 2, which were not incorporated in the first information report dated 6.3.2010. It was also the contention of the learned Counsel, that on account of omission of certain facts depicted in the complaint dated 4.2.2010, when the charge sheet was drawn on 27.7.2010, certain vital facts were not noticed. It is however pointed out, that respondent No. 2 in her capacity as a complainant, will bring the facts not taken into consideration, to the notice of the trial Court before the charges are framed. And that, it would be for the trial Court to take the same into consideration, in accordance with law.
15. When we were taken through the complaint dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure-A), it became apparent, that there were series of facts recorded in the said complaint, which did not find mention in the first information report dated 6.3.2010, as also, in the charge sheet dated 27.7.2010. We however choose not to make any reference to the same, and leave it to the wisdom of the trial Court, to examine the same, as already noticed above.
16. What needs to be taken into consideration is, the totality of the allegations levelled by respondent No. 2 against appellant Nos. 2 to 5. Having perused the contents of the first information report dated 6.3.2010, as also, the charge sheet dated 27.7.2010, we felt that the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the appellants, in that the allegations levelled against appellant Nos. 2 to 5 were vague and omnibus, could not be seriously contested. It is therefore, that we require learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2, to to point out from the complaint dated 4.2.2010, the allegations levelled against appellant Nos. 2 to 5. On our asking, learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule, invited our attention, to the contents of two paragraphs, from the complaint dated 4.2.2010, which are being extracted hereunder:
“Subsequently on 8.6.2007, myself and my husband Pritam Sadaphule came to Delhi and after some time we went to Mumbai. I stayed there for more than a week. During this period, Pritam, his father, mother, brother, sister i.e. entire family tortured, humiliated and harassed me to a great extent. I was beaten up by them for no reasons. They asked me for money which I had to give. Subsequently, myself and Pritam came back to Delhi and thereafter left for U.K. on 27.6.2007. In our stay at Delhi also, Pritarn’s offensive behaviour towards me and my parents continued.
Thereafter, Pritam Sadaphule came back on 8.7.2008 to Delhi; we stayed together in my parents’ home for some time, then again same ill-treatment, harassment, emotional and mental torture, humiliation was continued by Pritam Sadaphule. Thereafter, he took me to Goa for a week. There also he had beaten me with stick, abused me, insulted me and threatened me several times. Subsequently we came back to Delhi and same ill-treatment, harassment, emotional and mental torture, humiliation was continued by Pritam Sadaphule. During these days whenever I tried to contact his family, Ashok Sadaphule, Satwashile Sadaphule, Pravin Sadaphule, Preeti Sadaphule also abused me, humiliated me, harassed me, tortured me emotionally and mentally and threatened me with dire consequences. Thereafter, myself and Pritam left for U.K. on 4.9.2008.”
We have carefully perused the allegations point out by learned Counsel, from the complaint of respondent No. 2-Hima Pritam Sadaphule, dated 4.2.2010. There can be no doubt whatsoever, that the allegations levelled against appellant Nos. 2 to 5 do not justify any inference, which would lead to the conclusion, that they could be held responsible, for an offence in the nature of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied in accepting the prayer made in the instant appeal, with reference to appellant Nos. 2 to 5, and to order quashing of the first information report dated 6.3.2010, and the proceedings that may have arisen therefrom, including the charge sheet dated 27.7.2010.
17. The above conclusion/inference is not possible with reference to appellant No. 1. It is therefore, that the prayer made for quashing of the proceedings against appellant No. 1 is declined. We would not consider it appropriate to record any details in respect thereof, lest the same prejudice appellant No. 1, in the ongoing proceedings.
18. Before disposing of the instant appeal, we may notice, that on similar allegations, proceedings are being conducted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate (designated as Mahila Court) at Dwarka,in Delhi. The proceedings which have been initiated by respondent No. 2 under Section 498A, which now survive only against appellant No. 1, are on similar allegations and sequence of facts. Under Section 498A, the proceedings are being conducted before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikroli (East), Mumbai. Since the parties to the two proceedings are the same, and the adjudication is based on similar allegations and sequence of facts, we consider it just and appropriate to direct, that the two proceedings be conducted by the same Judge. The proceedings shall be conducted by a Court in Delhi. The District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi shall assign the two matters to the same Judge, in accordance with law. The proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikroli (East), Mumbai are accordingly ordered to be transferred to the Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi. The instant direction has been passed, since it will be a matter of convenience, for both the parties, to lead evidence with respect of the same sequence of facts before one Court, rather than in two Courts separated by a number of States and by more than a thousand kilometres.
Disposed of in the above terms.
Petition disposed of.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment