Hemant Bhannarwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

M.Cr.C.No.10989/2012 11.2.2013 Shri S.C.Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Hemant Bhannarwar, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri P.K.Chaurasiya, Panel Lawyer for the State.

The petitioner has filed copies of challan papeRs.therefore, the matter is heard finally.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge sheet filed in criminal Case No.294/2012 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Pipariya District Hoshangabad has taken the cognizance against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The brief facts of the case are that Geeta Bai, wife of the petitioner's brother Rajesh, was died on 13/11/2011 had committed suicide by hanging herself at about 11.00 AM.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the Merg investigation, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner is an advocate and is living separately with his family members at Jabalpur.

He has been falsely implicated in the case being brother of the husband of the deceased.

There is no specific allegation against the petitioner regarding demand of dowry or harassment.

Even on the date of incident he was not present in the house.

According to FIR, petitioner, his brother Rajesh and mother Mankuwar Bai became angry at the time of Lagun and demanded gold chain and four wheeler vehicle.

The marriage was solemnized on 11.12.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that at the time of marriage and thereafter petitioner was practicing at Jabalpur, therefore he was not involved in the offence of the house of his brother.

Further there is no allegation that soon before death of the victim, the petitioner has demanded any dowry or harassed the deceased for fulfilling the demand of dowry thereby he instigated her to commit suicide.

There is an omnibus allegation against the petitioner.

Mahesh Kumar, brother of the deceased, has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.that after marriage of her sister, for 2-3 months, the attitude of the husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased were good.

Thereafter his sister was abused by her husband for her ill health, in making an inference that she was harassed for fulfillment of demand of dowry.

It has also been mentioned in his statement that Rajesh and his mother told him that his sister is ill therefore they brought her at his house for treatment.

She was sent for treatment at Raipur also.

There is no allegation of demand of dowry or harassment for demand of dowry after the marriage.

On the contrary, the statement of brother of the deceased that during 2-3 months after the marriage, the behavior of the husband and his family members of the deceased were good and further looking to the allegation that deceased used to remain ill and was treated at different places the husband of the deceased abused her for her ill health.

The allegation for dowry harassment against the petitioner in the absence of any report during intervening period after marriage till death of the deceased seems to be false.

Looking to the fact that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer at Jabalpur and there is no allegation that petitioner has used to go to the house of his brother and used to harass the deceased for demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the matter of Preeti Gupta andanother versus State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: “35.

The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and project the innocent.

To found out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints.

The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon.

At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to certain the real truth.

The court have to be extremely careful and cautions in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.

The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely vested the place where the complaint resided would have an entirely different complexion.

The allegations of the complaint are required to be securitized with great care and circumspection.”

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.

It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether.

The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provisions is warranted by the legislature.

It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints.

The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.

The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned.

Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy.

Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society.

It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law.

It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated being brother of husband of the deceased and there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry by the petitioner soon before the death of the deceased even the petitioner was not present when the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has drawn attention towards the statement of Mahesh Kumar, who is brother of the deceased and submitted that the petitioner has not been falsely implicated.

Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Preeti Gupta and another (supra).the petitioner has been falsely implicated being closure relative of the husband of the deceased.

The mother of the petitioner falls within circumstance numbers 1 and 7 as mentioned by the Hon'ble Apex Court for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.in the matter of State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others AIR 199.SC 60.which are reproduced below: (1) where the allegations made in the FiRs.Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) ***** ***** (3) ***** ***** (4) ***** ***** (5) ***** ***** (6) ***** ***** (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

Considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petition is allowed.

The charge sheet against the petitioner filed in Criminal Case No.294/2012 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in order to taking cognizance for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act so far it relates to petitioner Hemant Bhannarwar, is hereby quashed.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

ravi (A.K.Sharma) JUDGE