ABHISHEK V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015 & 1456 OF 2015

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Case Name	Abhishek V. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal appeal Nos.	1457 of 2015 1456 of 2015
Date of Judgment	31-08-2023
Appellant	Abhishek Gour
Respondent	State of Madhya Pradesh & Bhawna
Bench	Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose Hon’ble Justice S.V.N Bhatti
Statutes Referred	Constitution of India,1950 Article 226: power of High court to issue orders and writs Indian Penal Code Article 498A: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished. Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 Article 3: Powers of police conferred on Dowry prohibition officer Article 4: Person demanding dowry from parents/relatives/guardian of bride or bridegroom subjected to punishment
Decision on Appeal	Appeal Allowed
Appeal in Court	The Supreme Court of India

ABSTRACT:

The case of Criminal Appeal No.1457 of 2015 in the Supreme court of India’s Criminal appellate jurisdiction involves an appeal filed by Abhishek, a judicial officer, against the state of Madhya Pradesh. The case centres around Bhawna, sister-in-law of the appellant and the respondent 2 in the present case. An appeal against a divorce decree has been filed by Bhawna. The court examines the allegations of cruelty and harassment made by Bhawna against the appellant, Abhishek and his family as well as the validity of the divorce decree and the allegations brought by Bhawna by means of a FIR. The court ultimately finds that the allegations of cruelty and harassment, as brought by Bhawna are not substantiated ad that the divorce decree is valid. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the evidence presented and the legal principles involved in the case.

KEYWORDS:

Matrimonial disputes-Domestic violence and torture-Dowry-False dowry allegations-498A-Dowry Prohibition Act 1961-

FACTS:

APPELANT- ABHISHEK, Civil Judge

RESPONDENT 1-STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

RESPONDENT 2- BHAWNA

Bhawna, respondent 2 is a teacher, by profession, who got married to Nimish Gour, engaged in film industry, brother of the appellant. The duo was residing in Mumbai. However, a divorce petition was filed by Nimish Gour consequentially bringing their marriage to an end. Respondent 2, Bhawna brought an appeal against this divorce decree before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The respondent had visited her matrimonial home for 3-4 times between 02.07.2007 and 25.02.2009 following which she left the matrimonial home to reside in her parent’s house.[1]

Kusum Lata, mother of the appellant had presented herself at Heera Nagar police station on24.02.2009 to state that Bhawna might institute dowry charges against her and her family on grounds of dowry demand induced harassment. Before the filing of divorce petition by Nimish Gour, Bhawna brought a complaint against her Husband and her in-laws for inflicting harassment on her for dowry. A FIR was filed on 09.02.2013 against the in-laws but the appellants secured anticipatory bail. The appellants moved to M.P High court through section 482, Criminal Procedure Code 1973, pleading the dismissal of the FIR dated on 09.02.2009. Meanwhile, charge sheet had been filed by the police against the appellants. Further fresh petitions were filed by 2 of the appellants challenging the charge sheet and the criminal proceedings instituted by the Judicial Magistrate class – I, Indore. The High court of Madhya Pradesh struck down these petitions following which the aggrieved party had approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.

The Respondent also filed an anonymous complaint before the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court asserting him being undeserving of holding an esteemed office as of a judge. Allegations against the appellant were also instituted before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, however the charges were brought in the name of Sanyogita Mishra.

TESTIMONY:

• Respondent -Om Prakash, Bhawana’s father testified that his daughter had been subjected to mental agony due to the constant demands of the in-laws and this agony was further aggravated by physical torture. The same was asserted by Renubala, mother of Bhawna and further few neighbors.
• Appellants- Neighbors living in vicinity where the appellant’s father had his residence had insisted on the fact that there was absolutely no torture which was inflicted on bhawna and no demands were made by the appellant’s family in regard to dowry.

Bhawna further asserted several allegations on to her mother-in-law and Abhishek, The Appellant as to demanding the gifts for the sake of safekeeping, taunts of her mother-in law including certain derogatory remarks as well. Bhawna further held the appellants responsible for the ill-health of her parents owing to the immense mental disruption caused due to constant demands and consequential harassment.

ISSUES:

Whether the allegations brought against the appellant and his family constituted is “general omnibus” or in other words uncertainty as to the specific offence committed by each accused in the allegations framed. The issue as recognized by the court pertains to whether the allegations constituted a general “omnibus” and thus liable of being quashed.

 ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT:

The court justified that the FIR was capable of being quashed and the dismissal of the FIR remained unaffected due to the fact that charge sheet had been submitted before the High Court and had been taken on file. The apex court delineated the power of High Court under the ambit of Section 482 CrPC and in capacity of this power a FIR could be quashed by the court even if charge sheet had already been submitted during the pendency of petition to struck down a FIR.

Taking reference from the cases of V.Ravi kumar vs. State and asserted that when a petition to quash a FIR is brought by an accused before the High Court , the court is not permitted to analyze the accusations or allegations in the complaint on grounds of correctness. Through the case of Mahmood Ali and Ors. V State of UP, the court reiterated that in cases where the accused seeks quashing of FIR on grounds that the charges or allegations brought are in their true nature frivolous or are framed with malicious ulterior motive other than attaining justice, The court is vested with the duty to analyze the charges, the FIR and ensure a higher degree of care in deciding on such matters.

The court laid stress on the concern that when general omnibus allegations are brought in matrimonial disputes they result in false implications and stain the essence of process of law. Hence, the absence of clear allegations even in the present case and hence prosecuting the in-laws in such circumstances would be violation of rule of law. Reference was made to Neelu Chopra V. Bharti[2] where the court’s observation affirmed that in cases involving matrimonial disputes and within the scope of Section 498A, specific data and facts are to be presented before the court as to which accused had committed what offence and the contribution of each accused in the happening of the offensible act.

The court preferred to refer to the case of Preeti Gupta V. State of Jharkhand[3] to state that it is a common and prevalent practice to drag the husband and his close relatives into the scope of allegations instituted under the ambit of Section 498A IPC. As also by the court in the present case Abhishek, the appellant who had been appointed as a judicial officer after some months of Nimish’s and Bhawna’s marriage and therefore did not have much scope of being in Bhawna’s vicinity. Similarly, Sourabh, an architect and brother of appellant against whom accusations were brought by Bhawna, resided in Delhi and there exists no substantial fact to prove possible Nexus between the claims and reasonable probability of the occurrence of the offence.

 This makes it an issue of paramount importance to initiate thorough scrutiny, examination and handling of matrimonial disputes. Because many in matrimonial cases like the one being discussed herein the complainant brings allegations even against relations residing in places beyond the cities or places where the torture or harassment is framed to have happened. Drawing observations from the judgment of the court of law in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal[4], the court held that there are several inconsistencies in the present case for instance

• Bhawna left her matrimonial home, due to constant harassment and torture by her in-laws, in 2009 but no complains had been brought by her till 2013.
• The statement of her regarding the custody of her stridhan being with her Mother-in-law, Kusum Lata and Abhishek but later accusing Nimish of retaining it and denying the return of the same.

The court allowed the appeals and quashed the FIR as well as the file pending before the Judicial Magistrate and further stating the allegations brought are “Far-fletched and Vague”[5]

The case analysis has been written by Insha Pani, student at National Law University Odisha and intern under Legal Vidhiya.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• AdvocateKhoj- https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=16745
• IndiaKanoon

Neelu Chopra v. Bharti- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/339579/

Preeti Gupta v State of Jharkhand- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46704/

State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46704/

• Live Law- https://www.livelaw.in/tags/abhishek-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh
• Indianemployees-  https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/abhishek-versus-state-of-madhya-pradesh

---

[1] advocatekhoj.com, Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh | Latest Supreme Court Judgments | Law Library | AdvocateKhoj, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=16745 (last visited Nov 6, 2023).

[2] Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/339579/ (last visited Nov 6, 2023).

[3] Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46704/ (last visited Nov 6, 2023).

[4] State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033637/ (last visited Nov 6, 2023).

[5] livelaw, Read All Latest Updates on and about Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, https://www.livelaw.in/tags/abhishek-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh (last visited Nov 6, 2023).

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.