Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 263 (GUJ)

Nirmala Vasantrao Savant v. State of Gujarat

2019-03-26

A.P.THAKER

body2019
JUDGMENT : A P Thaker, J. By filing this writ application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused no.3 has prayed to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint being C.R.No.I-41 of 2016 registered at Navapura Police Station, Vadodara, for the offences under Section 498(A), 323, 504 and 114 of IPC and Section 3, 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to quash and set aside charge sheet and to quash and set aside further proceedings of Criminal Case No.25796/2016 pending before learned JMFC, Vadodara, so far as present petitioner is concerned. 2. It is the case of the applicant that both the complainant and her husband were divorcee. It is their second marriage. Out of the first marriage, the complainant was having one daughter. It is alleged in the complaint that the husband used to physically abuse the complainant and to demand Rs.1 Lac towards dowry. It is also alleged that the husband had illicit relationship with his former wife, who was frequently visiting the house. It is also alleged that due to instigation of former wife and mother, the husband was demanding dowry, who threw the complainant out of her house. With these allegations, the complainant was given, which was registered as C.R.No.I-41 of 2016 before Navapura Police Station, Vadodara. 3. Heard Mr.Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondent no.2. 4. Mr.Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant has contended that the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 is false and frivolous and bare reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence against the present applicant, who is mother-in-law of the complainant. He submitted that the present applicant was wrongly roped in the complaint, as it is stated that the demand of dowry was raised by husband upon instigation of former wife and mother, which is not plausible. He also submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen and she has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) CriLJ 4303 (1). He also submitted that co-accused in the present complaint is discharged by the trial Court. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) CriLJ 4303 (1). He also submitted that co-accused in the present complaint is discharged by the trial Court. Considering all these aspects, he prayed that complaint and subsequent proceedings against the present applicant may be quashed and set aside. 5. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State has vehemently submitted that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature. She has submitted that it is specifically alleged by the complainant that at the instigation of the present applicant, mother-in-law, the husband was demanding dowry and was also beating the complainant-wife. It is also alleged that the complainant was given physical and mental torture at the instance of the present applicant, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no case or allegation against the present applicant. She, therefore, prayed to reject the present application. 6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is settled law that for considering the petition under Section 482 of the Code, it is necessary to consider as to whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out a case or not and the Court is not to scrutinize the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in trial. It is also well settled that though the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, these powers are meant to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The Supreme Court, time and again, has observed that extraordinary power should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The High Court would be justified in exercising the said power when it is imperative to exercise the same in order to prevent injustice. The Court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out prima facie whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge. The Court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out prima facie whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge. To prevent abuse of process of the Court, and to save the innocent from false prosecutions at the hands of unscrupulous litigants, the criminal proceedings, even if they are at the stage of framing of the charge, if they appear to be frivolous and false, should be quashed at the threshold. 7. As stated by learned advocate for the applicant, co-accused of the present applicant viz. Pritiben Balvantrav Dattajirav is discharged by the learned trial Court. Not only that the applicant is aged about 75 years and the allegations against her are general in nature. In the present case, the allegations against the present applicant are of instigating the husband of the complainant, however, a plain reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet papers reveal that the allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on records, this Court is of the view that the allegations against the applicant herein are quite vague and general. As usual the wife has adopted the tendency of roping as many persons of the family of the husband as possible. In view of this Court, the continuation of investigation is nothing but in the abuse of process of law. In the result, this application is allowed. So far as present applicant is concerned, Criminal Complaint being C.R.No.I-41 of 2016 registered at Navapura Police Station, Vadodara, for the offences under Section 498(A), 323, 504 and 114 of IPC and Section 3, 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and charge sheet as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case No.25796/2016 pending before learned JMFC, Vadodara, are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.