Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 466 (GUJ)

MAHESH FATEHLAL DUGGAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2010-09-29

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI

body2010
JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. Rule. Learned APP, Ms. Chetana Shah and learned Advocate Mr. M.H. Pathak waive service of rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Counsel for the Petitioner did not press the present petition qua Petitioner No. 1. Rule discharged qua present Petitioner No. 1. 3. Petitioner No. 2 is the father of Petitioner No. 1 and father-in-law of Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint bearing C.R. No. 395 of 2009 dated 29.5.2009 before Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad alleging offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506(1) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. It is not in dispute that Petitioner No. 2 resides at Udaipur. He is stated to be around 85 years of age. The couple i.e. complainant and her husband resided at Ahmedabad. In addition to above factors, I have also perused the FIR in question in which main allegations are made against husband of dowry demand and harassment. Only allegation against the father of the husband is that when the complainant wife used to speak to him either in phone or in person requesting him to persuade his son not to make dowry demand and/or to harass her, she was told that if she pays Rs. 5 lacs to his son, he would not harass her. 5. As already noted, allegation of dowry demand, harassment and cruelty are against the husband of the complainant. Only allegation against the father, who is aged more than 80 years of age, who has been residing far away from Ahemedabad is that he did not persuade his son to give up the dowry demand or to ill-treat the wife. Quite apart from the question whether such allegations would satisfy requirements of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, these allegations are also vague and general in nature. No specific details have been given when, how and in what manner such incident took place. 6. Permitting further investigation and trial into such allegations against Petitioner No. 2 in the facts of the case, in my opinion, amount to abuse of process of Court, therefore, complaint at Annexure-'A' i.e. C.R. No. 395 of 2009 dated 29.5.2009 before Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad qua Petitioner No. 2 is quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 7. Permitting further investigation and trial into such allegations against Petitioner No. 2 in the facts of the case, in my opinion, amount to abuse of process of Court, therefore, complaint at Annexure-'A' i.e. C.R. No. 395 of 2009 dated 29.5.2009 before Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad qua Petitioner No. 2 is quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 7. Trial shall proceed in accordance with law against the husband. Nothing stated in this order shall influence such pending trial.