Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2339 (BOM)

Vivek Vats v. Dinesh Kumari Sharma

2019-10-11

C.V.BHADANG, NUTAN D.SARDESSAI

body2019
JUDGMENT : C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents, waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code, for short), the petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR 111/18 dated 03.11.2018, registered against the petitioners and others with PS Colva, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). 3. The petitioner no. 1 happens to be the brother-in-law of the first respondent. The petitioner no. 2 is an unmarried sister of the petitioner no. 1. The first respondent is married to the 4th respondent on 12.06.2015 at Narvana Jind, Haryana and they are blessed with a son who was born on 05.04.2016. Both the first and the 4th respondents are holding a Bachelor's Degree in Dental Surgery. The maternal place of the first respondent is in Goa. For sometime, the first and the 4th respondent had a Dental Clinic at Gurgaon. 4. Be that as it may, the marriage ran into rough weather and the parties are staying separately since 06.10.2016. The first respondent filed a complaint dated 29.06.2018 with P.S. Colva against the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent and her parents-in-law alleging ill treatment on account of non-satisfaction of a demand for dowry/valuables. On the basis of the said complaint, the impugned FIR no. 111/2018 came to be registered on 03.11.2018 against the petitioners as well as 4th respondent and the parents-in-law of the first respondent and the investigation is stated to be in progress. 5. Although by the present petition the quashing of the FIR is sought by both the petitioners, at the hearing of the petition, Mr. De Sa, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, restricted the prayer for quashing of the FIR only, insofar as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned. In other words, the prayer for quashing of the FIR in relation of the petitioner no. 2 is not pressed. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused record. 7. It is submitted by Mr. De Sa, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that the complaint does not disclose any offence as against the petitioner no. 1. In other words, the prayer for quashing of the FIR in relation of the petitioner no. 2 is not pressed. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused record. 7. It is submitted by Mr. De Sa, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that the complaint does not disclose any offence as against the petitioner no. 1. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as a Geologist at Mumbai and had no role to play in the alleged ill treatment meted out to the first respondent. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Rashmi Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & anr. AIR 2019 SC 2297 . It is submitted that the allegation in the complaint/FIR even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner no. 1. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner no. 1 are absurd and are inherently improbable and the complaint is manifestly attended with malafides and is filed with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, has submitted that the investigation has to proceed and it is only during the course of the investigations that the material in support of the allegations in the complaint, can be collected. 9. Mr. Lawande, the learned Counsel for the first respondent, has submitted that there is a prima facie case made out, about the first respondent being subjected to ill treatment in relation to the demand for dowry/valuables and cash and all the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention in meting out ill treatment to the first respondent. It is submitted that it was the petitioner no. 1 who was instrumental and had forced the first and the 4th respondent to vacate the Gurgaon flat and compelled the 4th respondent to close the Gurgaon clinic. He, therefore, submitted that no case for quashing of the FIR as against the petitioner no. 1 is made out. 10. We have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. 1 who was instrumental and had forced the first and the 4th respondent to vacate the Gurgaon flat and compelled the 4th respondent to close the Gurgaon clinic. He, therefore, submitted that no case for quashing of the FIR as against the petitioner no. 1 is made out. 10. We have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the complaint dated 29.06.2018 lodged by the first respondent and we find that the only allegation against the petitioner no. 1 are the ones which can be found in para 15 and para 24 of the complaint which read thus: "15. On 03.08.2016 my husband came to Goa, to take me and our son to Gurgaon, he promised me that on reaching Gurgaon flat he will employ a maid for the household work and so that I will have time and energy to pursue dental practice. He also promised that my son will be looked after my husband's family and he will bring his sister or mother to Gurgaon flat. On 08.08.2016, when we reached Delhi airport, my brother in law Vivek Vats who had come to collect us proceeded to my in laws house in Bhiwani as instructed by my mother in law, instead of flat at Gurgaon as promised by my husband in front of my parents in Goa. I requested both of them, as I and baby were tired of long journey and had no strength to travel any further. But they forcibly took me and baby to Bhiwani. 24. On 22.09.2016 my mother in law threatened me by saying that today my husband's elder brother Vivek is coming and they all will teach me a lesson, then how I will save myself. I got scared informed my mother, who immediately called my father in law and told him about Vivek's threat. He replied how is he involved here? My mother said that he is the only person who not just physically but even over the phone, along with my mother in law is planning all the conspiracies, tortures, harassments against me as I did not bring dowry. My brother in law, Vivek only forced me and my husband to vacate Gurgaon flat and compelled my husband to close down Gurgaon clinic. My brother in law, Vivek only forced me and my husband to vacate Gurgaon flat and compelled my husband to close down Gurgaon clinic. My father in law replied to my mother that he had put up that clinic for my husband and he shut it down, asked my mother why don't she open a clinic for my husband. Then my mother asked why he did not discuss this before marriage at least I would have been saved from such a cruel and greedy family." (Emphasis supplied) 11. It can thus be seen that insofar as the incident dated 03.08.2016 is concerned, (para 15), the only allegation against the petitioner no. 1 is that when he had come to collect the first and the 4th respondent at the Delhi Airport, took them to their house in Bhiwani instead of flat at Gurgaon which, according to the first respondent, was promised by her husband i.e. 4th respondent. Coming to para 24, the only allegation against the petitioner no. 1 is that he allegedly forced the respondent nos. 1 and 4 to vacate the Gurgaon flat and compelled the first respondent to close down the Gurgaon clinic. 12. We are of the considered view that the allegations so made against the petitioner no. 1 even if taken at their face value are unable to make out any offence under Section 498-A of IPC. It was not seriously disputed that the petitioner no. 1 who is working as a Geologist is staying at Mumbai. At one stage, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 keeps visiting their house at Bhiwani. However, the complaint does not attribute any act to the petitioner no. 1 in any of his visits at Bhiwani about ill treatment to the first respondent. We find that the present case is clearly covered by para 102(1) of the judgment in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found to be sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings. 13. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned FIR to the extent registering the offence under Sections 498A, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner no. 1, Mr. Vivek Vats, is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned FIR to the extent registering the offence under Sections 498A, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner no. 1, Mr. Vivek Vats, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Needless to mention, that the investigation insofar as the other accused, can continue. (iv) It is further made clear that the observations herein are limited for the purpose of deciding the plea for quashing the FIR and the learned Magistrate hearing the complaint under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or any other proceedings, between the parties shall not be influenced by these observations. (v) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.