While firmly, fully and finally drawing the curtains to a close on the increasing deprecating tendency among woman to misuse the laws that are actually meant for the safety of women, we see that the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled X & Ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer & Anr in Misc. Criminal Case No. 6308 of 2022 that was pronounced just recently on March 1, 2024 has gone to the extent of imposing an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh on a divorced woman for misuse of the process of the court saying clearly that unscrupulous litigants cannot take courts for a ride which are meant for serious litigation.
This will definitely serve as a best, biggest and brightest example to all women that if they dare to misuse laws against men as per their own whims and fancies then they too could end up paying through their nose as we see in this leading case! It must be mentioned here that the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court was dealing with a petition that had been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the FIR that had been registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34, 325 and 323 of the IPC and the subsequent proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
While stating the purpose for which the petition is filed, the Bench specifies in para 2 that:
This petition (M.Cr.C. No.6308 of 2022) has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR lodged at Crime No.999 of 2018 registered at Police Station – Vijay Nagar, Indore under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34, 325 and 313 of IPC and also the subsequent proceedings which are pending in S.T. No.578 of 2019 in the Court of 16th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.
As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 3 that:
Since charges have already been framed in the aforesaid case, the petitioners, by way of extra precaution, have also filed a separate Criminal Revision No.3272 of 2022 against the framing of charges dated 18.07.2022 and 04.08.2022 under Sections 498A and 313 of IPC against all the petitioners, and additional charges against petitioner No.1 under Sections 323, 325 and 506 of IPC and since the facts are identical, the aforesaid criminal revision is also being disposed of vide this order.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that:
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 Anshul Gupta’s marriage was solemnized with the respondent No.2 Smt. Purnima on 23.04.2000, whereas the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the octogenarian father and mother of the petitioner No.1. Out of this marriage, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 also have a daughter, who is now aged 20 years, presently residing with the petitioners only. It is also an admitted fact that there was matrimonial dispute between the parties after some years of the marriage and re scores of proceedings were filed by the petitioners and the respondent No.2 against each other which are as under:
- HMA No.1715/2018 Divorce petition by the petitioner No.1 (No.1) under H.M.A. (Oct.2018); dismissed on 01.02.2023.
- MJC No.513/20 Respondent No.2 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; dismissed on 01.02.2023.
- HMA No.627/2020 Respondent No.2 filed petition under Section 9 H.M.A.; dismissed on 01.02.2023.
- UNCR No.7301 of 2019 the respondent No.2 filed complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before JMFC Indore; dismissed on 17.02.2023.
- Application under Section 13 B of HMA for decree of divorce on the basis of compromise in Family Court HMA No.187/2023; divorce decree awarded on 02.02.2023.
and thus, finally the dispute was settled between the parties after the application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was decreed on 02.02.2023, and a decree of divorce by mutual consent was obtained after the settlement was arrived at between the parties in which it was clearly stipulated in paras 15 and 16 of the application that the respondent No.2 would get a sum of Rs.50 lakhs and she would also ensure that each and every case, which is lodged by her in any Court of India shall be withdrawn. Decree of divorce has also been filed on record.
Do note, the Bench notes in para 5 that:
After the aforesaid decree was passed, since the present case i.e. at Crime No.999 of 2018 was also pending in which the chargesheet was filed in the month of December 2018, as no application for compounding or quashment of the same was filed by the respondent no.2, the present petition has been filed. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is that after the aforesaid decree was passed and the respondent No.2 received a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, she refused to withdraw the present case, which was lodged at Crime No.999 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34, 325 and 313 of IPC.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 12 that:
From the record, it is found that the undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2’s daughter, who is around 18 to 20 years old, is presently residing with the petitioners. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the octogenarian as both are aged 82 and 80 years (in the year 2022). It is also found that the respondent No.2 has already received a sum of Rs.50 lakhs pursuant to the decree of divorce arrived at between the parties by mutual consent on 02.02.2023, and despite the specific undertaking given in the agreement, which is also a part of the decree, the respondent no.2 has not made any efforts to get the criminal case arising out of Crime No.999 of 2018 quashed or even to support the present petition filed for the quashment of the same and on the contrary, it is being opposed.
As it turned out, the Bench conceded in para 14 that:
It is true that a case under Section 313 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence. However, considering the fact that the respondent No.2 got her Medical Termination of Pregnancy way back in the year 2009, it is difficult for this Court to perceive that the aforesaid termination of pregnancy through legal procedure, from a reputed hospital can be stretched to the extent to wrap it as an offence of causing miscarriage without the respondent No.2’s consent falling under Section 313 of IPC and that too after a period of around 12 years.
It cannot be glossed over that the Bench points out in para 15 that, Admittedly, apart from the aforesaid certificate of MTP issued by Bombay Hospital, Indore there is nothing on record to support the allegation of offence u/s.313. It is also found that if the prosecution was of the opinion that the aforesaid procedure of medical termination of pregnancy was performed without the consent of the respondent No.2, in that case the Hospital was equally liable for that, but the Hospital is not an accused and even in the certificate issued by the Hospital, it has been mentioned that apart from the aforesaid certificate, there is no other supporting documents available regarding the aforesaid case due to lapse of time.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the documents filed along with the charge sheet are accepted to be true, the charge under Section 313 of IPC is not at all made out and appears to have been added with the mala fide intentions of harassing the petitioners.
Quite forthrightly, the Bench postulates in para 16 that:
So far as the other offences u/ss. 498A, 323, 506, 34, 325 of IPC are concerned, it is found that omnibus allegations have been made by the complainant and further considering the fact a decree of divorce by mutual consent has already been passed between the parties, the respondent no.2 was bound to withdraw the same but she deliberately, with ulterior motives refused to withdraw even that part of the charge-sheet.
Thus, the conduct of the respondent no.2 in continuing with the criminal case against the petitioners despite entering into a compromise with the petitioner no.1, and accepting Rs.50 Lakhs in lieu thereof, clearly amounts to misuse of the process of the court.
As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 20 that:
In view of the facts and circumstance of the case in hand, and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as also this Court, both the petitions stand allowed with cost of Rs.1 lakh and the FIR lodged at Crime No.999 of 2018 registered at Police Station – Vijay Nagar, Indore under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34, 325 and 313 of IPC and the subsequent charges framed against them by the trial Court vide order dated 18.07.2022 and 04.08.2022 and the proceedings which are pending in S.T. No.578 of 2019 are hereby quashed.
Finally and far most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 21 that:
The cost of Rs.1 lakh has been so imposed only to caution the unscrupulous litigants that they cannot take the Courts for a ride which are meant for serious litigation, and the valuable time of the Courts cannot be allowed to be wasted by them in any manner.
Thus, the cost shall be paid by the respondent No.2, who has already received Rs.50 lakhs from the petitioners, to the petitioner No.1 within a period of four weeks by crediting the same in the bank account of the petitioner No.1, the details of which can be obtained from the Registry of this Court and the petitioner No.1 is directed to furnish his bank account details before the Registry of this Court so that this order can be complied with.
In conclusion, we thus see that the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has definitely made it indubitably clear that the unscrupulous litigants can’t take courts for a ride. If they dare to even try then they would be made to pay through their nose as we see in this leading case.
There can be no denying or disputing that the Rs 1 lakh cost that has been imposed on divorced woman for misuse of court process by the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court is the most straightforward, significant and strictest stand that just because a litigant is a woman she cannot dare to take the courts for granted any longer and if she tries to misuse the laws in any manner then she will be made to face the strictest punishment as we see so very ostensibly in this leading judgment!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
