Court:Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bench: JUSTICE N.K. Gupta
Savita Soni Vs. Sanjay Soni & Ors. On 10 October 2013
Law Point:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 378(4) — Cruelty — Appeal against acquittal — No illegality or perversity — Complainant left the matrimonial house after 2 months of marriage — No possibility of any cruelty meted out to her — PW2, mother of complainant wanted that all her sons-in-law should reside with her as “Gharjamai” — Respondent No. 1 left the house, false FIR was lodged against him and his family members to pressurize him — Judgment passed by JMFC appears to be correct — No illegality or perversity in that judgment — Leave to appeal cannot be granted.
JUDGEMENT
The applicant has preferred this application for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 16.4.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad in Criminal Complaint Case No. 273/2007 whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
2. The prosecution’s case, in short, is that the applicant has filed a criminal complaint on 12.12.2006 before the Trial Court that her marriage took place with the respondent No. 1 Sanjay Soni on 6.5.2006 in a Gayatri Temple and the parents of the complainant spent huge amount in the marriage. However, the respondents were demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000 and a motorcycle and thereafter the complainant was harassed for that demand by the respondents. She visited the house of the respondents at Hoshangabad for 2-3 times and then she left to her parents’ house along with the respondent No. 1. After sometime the respondent No. 1 was taken by the other respondents to Hoshangabad back and the complainant lodged an FIR before the police but no action was taken by the police, therefore the complainant had lodged a criminal complaint.
3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They produced as many as 24 documents in defence to show that it was the complainant who harassed the respondents. Her previous statements, various notices, etc. were submitted to show her conduct.
4. The learned JMFC after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondents.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant at length.
6. After considering the statements of Savita Soni (PW-1) and Mathura Bai (PW-2) it appears that the complainant resided in her husband’s house for 2-3 times only and she resided for few days at Hoshangabad. It is also apparent that the marriage of the complainant and the respondent No. l took place in a Gayatri Temple, and therefore it cannot be accepted from the evidence of the complainant and her mother that a huge amount was spent in giving the gifts, etc. If the marriage took place in Gayatri Temple, then it was without gift, etc. According to the FIR Ex. P-1, it was lodged on 16.10.2006 and the same was prepared by some law knowing person and some blank space were left in the FIR which was filled up by the complainant thereafter. She did not give a date when she started living with her parents and husband at Pipariya. According to the complainant, her marriage took place on 6.5.2006 and lastly her husband left her and went to Hoshangabad on 6.9.2006. According to the complainant, her husband resided with her in her parents’ house for two months which indicates that she came with her husband to her parents’ house in July 2006.
7. It is strange that within two months of her marriage, she left the house of her husband and went to the house of her parents. Therefore, in first two months of the marriage where the marriage took place in Gayatri Temple the complainant could not be harassed for demand of dowry. If her husband was demanding the dowry, then he could not come with her to reside at her parents’ house. Under such circumstances, the allegations made against the respondents appear to be incorrect. If the respondent No. 1 left the house of her parents’ house on 6.9.2006, then it was not the harassment. It is apparent from the various documents filed by the respondents that the respondent No. 1 was working as a teacher in a private school. He was also doing the work as a tutor to some students and he was liable to do the entire domestic work of the house, and therefore if he left the house of the complainant’s parents, then it is not the act of harassment. Under such circumstances, the learned JMFC has rightly acquitted the respondent No. 1 from the aforesaid charge.
8. It is also alleged against the respondent No. 3 that she demanded dowry, etc. from the complainant but the complainant resided at Hoshangabad for few days in the period of two months and in the period of two months she went to her parents’ house for two times and came to the house of the respondents for three times. It appears that she hardly resided for three weeks in that period and in her small stay, it was not possible for the respondent No. 3 to demand for any dowry. Mathura Bai (PW-2) mother of the complainant has admitted in para 19 of her statement that the respondent No. 3-Smt. Radha Bai was residing at Village Semrichandra and she was not residing at Hoshangabad, hence it was not possible for the respondent No. 3 to harass the complainant at Hoshangabad. Under such circumstances, the learned JMFC has rightly acquitted the respondent No. 3 from the aforesaid charge.
9. Mathura Bai (PW-2) has also admitted in para 19 that the respondent No. 2 Ashok Soni brother of the respondent No. 1 was in service and he was not residing with the respondent No. 1. He was residing separately. Under such circumstances, the respondent No. 2 could not interfere in day to day family affairs of the complainant and her husband. If the allegations are considered for those two months where the complainant resided in the house of her husband for hardly three weeks, then it is not impossible for the respondent No. 2 to harass the complainant for dowry demand. It was alleged against the respondent No. 2 that he took the respondent No. 1 from the house of the complainant. However, the complainant Savita Soni (PW-1) has accepted in her cross examination that her husband went from Pipariya to Hoshangabad on his own. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 took the respondent No. 1 forcefully from Pipariya.
10. Mathura Bai (PW-2) in para 8 of her statement has accepted that all her married daughters were residing with her in a house, which indicates that Mathura Bai wanted that all her sons-in-law should reside with her as “Gharjamai”. The respondent No. 1 left her house, then a false FIR was lodged against him and his family members to pressurize him. Under such circumstances, if the learned JMFC has acquitted all the respondents from the charge of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, then no illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned JMFC.
11. Since the judgment passed by the learned JMFC appears to be correct and no illegality or perversity is visible in that judgment, then the present leave application filed against the judgment cannot be accepted. There is no possibility of the acceptance of the appeal. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case in which leave to appeal may be granted. Consequently, the present application filed by the applicant under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court along with its record for information.
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