Husband, In-Laws 'Falsely Implicated' By Wife In View Of Matrimonial Dispute Between Parties: Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes Rape, Dowry FIR

While quashing a rape and dowry FIR against a husband and his kin, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the petitioner and his family members were "falsely implicated", adding that the lodging of the FIR at the wife's instance appeared to be an act of "wreaking vengeance". The court said this after noting that there existed a pending civil suit filed by the petitioner husband against the complainant wife and another individual seeking a permanent injunction. In thus observed that FIR lodged at the wife's instance appeared have to be filed only to counter the civil suit which existed between the parties. Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “Whereas a matrimonial dispute exists between the parties as the petitioner No.1 has already filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.2/complainant on 16.02.2021, whereas the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant on 04.03.2021, which appears to be an act of wreaking vengeance on the accused/petitioners, only as a counterblast to the civil cases.…under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that petitioner no.1 and his family members have been falsely implicated in the criminal case due to matri monial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and his wife, the respondent no.2 herein, and the continuation of trial against them would only amount to misuse of the process of the Court.”The court was hearing a petition by the petitioner husband and his family seeking quashing the FIR lodged under IPC Sections 354(A) (Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 354(B) (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 376 (Punishment for Rape), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 294 (Obscene acts and songs), 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) & 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and Sections 3 (Penalty for giving or taking dowry) & 4 (Penalty for demanding dowry) of The Dowry Prohibition Act.The FIR was lodged at the instance of the Respondent No. 2-complainant wife wherein she alleged that she was being harassed by the petitioners for not bringing adequate dowry. She also alleged that she was subjected to unnatural intercourse and her brother-in-law also outraged her modesty, and used to abuse and beat her. She further alleged that her husband used to make private videos of her and threatened her that he would make them viral, pursuant to which an FIR was filed. However, it is alleged that on being granted bail, the petitioners started harassing her again.The counsel for the petitioners submitted that a total false case has been lodged against the petitioners, who belong to a well-educated family. It is also submitted that in the entire charge-sheet no such video clips or photographs have been seized by the police, which, according to the respondent no. 2-complainant, were taken by the petitioner husband.The counsel further submitted that the petitioner husband had already filed a divorce petition against the respondent No.2/complainant, and only as a counterblast to the aforesaid civil cases, a false case has been registered by the complainant. Moreover, the parties had a love marriage hence, there was no question of demand of any dowry etc.On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent wife submitted that the petitioners have inflicted extreme atrocities on her, which led her to lodge the FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner accused also used to "take his wife to other persons to satisfy their lust", and whereas, the brother-in-law/petitioner No. 4 also used to outrage the modesty of the respondent No.2.After perusal of the records, the court observed, “This court finds that apart from the verbal allegations, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioners with the offence. It is also found that the complainant herself is well educated, whereas, the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are also qualified Engineers, the documents regarding which, have already been filed on record, which have not been rebutted by the respondent No.2, whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent No.2.”The court also noted that as per wife's medical examination, and as per the history given to the doctor it was stated that her husband has left her around four months ago. In the MLC apparently, the doctor has not given any opinion about the rape as claimed by the respondent No.2-complainant wife. The court noted that apparentlythere was delay of at least four months in lodging the FIR. The court concluded that the petitioner no. 1 and his family members were false implicated in the criminal case due to matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and Respondent No. 2.Thus, the present petition was allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of it were thereby, quashed.Case Title: Aman & Others Versus The State Of...

Husband, In-Laws 'Falsely Implicated' By Wife In View Of Matrimonial Dispute Between Parties: Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes Rape, Dowry FIR

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Husband, In-Laws 'Falsely Implicated' By Wife In View Of Matrimonial Dispute Between Parties: Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes Rape, Dowry FIR

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers