Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 696 (GUJ)

TUSHARBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-08-18

B.N.KARIA

body2021
ORDER : 1. By way of present application, applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being IIC. R.No.18 of 2014 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist.: Mehsana for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC” for short) as well as proceedings arising therefrom qua present applicants. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State. 3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that applicants are the quite innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged against them in the FIR and they have been wrongly involved in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that looking to the allegations levelled in the FIR, no ingredients of any offence much less the offence alleged in the FIR is attracted prima facie. It is further submitted that since the complainant’s side has apprehension of initiation of actions/proceedings by the Visa Authority pursuant to the FIR lodged by Meenaben (applicant no.4) against her in-laws i.e. present complainant and his son, therefore, only with a view to pressurize the applicants to withdraw the said FIR filed by applicant no.4, complainant has filed the present second FIR against the applicants. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been filed for the alleged offence of bigamy by the complainant and in fact, the complaint is not filed by the aggrieved person, i.e. Parisha. It is further submitted that since Parisha herself has deserted her husband i.e. applicant no.1, she did not bother for the marital status of applicant no.1, but without her consent, her father lodged the false complaint with the aforesaid oblique motive. It is further submitted that FIR has been filed after a delay of more than 12 years of the alleged offence. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for applicants to quash the FIR. 4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 has submitted that petitioners, with an intent to pressurize the complainant and to see that the complainant will accept their illegal demand of extracting money, though respondent no.2- complainant is a senior citizen, have subject the complainant’s daughter -Pareshaben to harass. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for applicants to quash the FIR. 4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 has submitted that petitioners, with an intent to pressurize the complainant and to see that the complainant will accept their illegal demand of extracting money, though respondent no.2- complainant is a senior citizen, have subject the complainant’s daughter -Pareshaben to harass. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 is a law breaker and he has taken law in his hand inasmuch as without obtaining divorce from daughter of respondent no.2, he got married to another lady viz. Lataben Tusharbhai – petitioner no.3 herein. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 has never made any effort to maintain the complainant’s daughter and the daughter of the complainant had suffered untold humiliation at the hands of petitioner nos.1 and 3, who have derived help from other petitioners and two daughters are born from the said illegal marriage. It is further submitted that from the petitioners’ side, harassment has been meted out to respondent no.2’s side. It is further submitted that it is clear that by one or other excuses, petitioners with a view to extract money from the complainant are harassing respondent no.2’s side on one or other reason. Looking to the nature of the offence, learned advocate for respondent no.2 has requested not to quash the impugned FIR. 5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate for respondent no.2 and requested to reject present application. 6. Having heard learned advocate for applicants and learned advocate for respondent no.2 as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that daughter of the complainant viz. Parisha got married with present applicant no.1 in the year 1990 and the son of the complainant got married with Meenaben (present applicant no.4) i.e. sister of applicant no.1, as per Sata (Exchange) System. It also appears that the complainant’s daughter is residing at USA since last more than 20 years and having citizenship also and as per the complaint, after marriage of daughter of the complainant, on coming to know about the involvement of his husband i.e. present applicant no.1 in the murder case, she did not even visit to her matrimonial home for a single time and after sometime, she went to America. It also appears that on coming out from the jail, applicant no.1 threatened his wife i.e. daughter of the complainant that either she should come back to India or she should arrange to take him at America. As per the allegations made in the complaint, both of them came to know about second marriage of applicant no.1, but since they were in America, they could not take action against applicant no.1. In the year 2002, the complainant and his daughter came to India and when they inquired about applicant no.1, they came to know about second marriage of applicant no.1 with applicant no.3 and though the marriage of daughter of the complainant with applicant no.1 was in existence, no action was taken or initiated against applicant no.1 and daughter of the complainant returned to America. It also appears that thereafter, in the year 2012, the complainant came to India and he sought divorce for his daughter from applicant no.1, but applicant no.1 demanded Rs.51 lakhs for the same and since the complainant did not agree with his demand, applicant no.1 threatened the complainant. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged. It also appears that some matrimonial dispute is going on with applicant no.4 – Meenaben Kanjibhai with her husband. It appears from the record that on 02.03.2013, applicant no.4- Meenaben Kanjibhai has filed one criminal complaint against respondent no.2, her husband - Patel Mineshbhai Pursottambhai, Patel Dharmisthaben Pursottambhai, Patel Pareshaben Pursottambhai with the Mehsana Police Station under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It also appears from the record that respondent no.2 has also filed another complaint against his daughter-in-law viz. Meenaben wife of Mineshbhai, Patel Tusharkumar Kanjibhai, Patel Arvindkumar Kanjibhai and Patel Rameshbhai Punjiram registered with Visnagar Police Station, Dist.: Mehsana on 24.05.2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC. It also appears from the record that in his complaint, without consent of his daughter, in their absence, applicant no.1 married to applicant no.3 at Village: Unjha. No divorce was taken before that by applicant no.1. It is stated in clear terms that however, they were aware with the facts that the marriage was solemnized by applicant no.1 with applicant no.3 in 2002, as per the statement of his daughter viz. No divorce was taken before that by applicant no.1. It is stated in clear terms that however, they were aware with the facts that the marriage was solemnized by applicant no.1 with applicant no.3 in 2002, as per the statement of his daughter viz. Parishaben, no action was initiated by him for the reasons that applicant no.3-Meenabemn was married with the son of respondent no.2 and she was staying with him. The daughter of the complainant informed that she would take necessary measure of the marriage solemnized by applicant no.1 with applicant no.3. Thereafter, she left for Amriaca after one and half months. It also appears that demand of Rs.51 lakhs was made by applicant no.1 for granting divorce to the daughter of respondent no.2, but it was not accepted by the original complainant and therefore, the other applicants had given threats to commit murder, and therefore, they were arraigned as an accused as no divorce was granted. Prima facie, it appears that applicant nos.2 to 5, who are the family members of applicant no.1, are wrongly arraigned as an accused in the complaint. The main allegations are made against applicant no.1 only viz. Tusharbhai Kanjibhai Patel, who is married without getting divorce from his wife, daughter of respondent no.2 complainant. No other allegations are made in the complaint against applicant nos.2 to 5 to attract Section 494 of the IPC. No satisfactory explanation is made against applicant nos.2 to 5 in the complaint for lodging the complaint after passing of 12 years for the alleged offence of Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. Learned advocate for respondent no.2, in support of his case, has relied upon the judgment in the case of Vanka Radhamanohari Vs. Vanka Venkata Reddy and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 4 and another judgment in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tara Dutt and another reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 297, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that bar under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be applicable to the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 against applicant no.1 can be continued as desired by respondent no.2. Tara Dutt and another reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 297, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that bar under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not be applicable to the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no.2 against applicant no.1 can be continued as desired by respondent no.2. There are no averments made in the complaint to attract any provision of Sections 494, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC against rest of the accused persons i.e. accused nos.2 to 5. Inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines i.e. (I) to secure the ends of justice or (II) to prevent abuse of process of any Court. In what cases power to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim are involved would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and no category can be described. This Court has considered the nature and gravity of crime, as alleged in the complaint lodged by respondent no.2. The dispute appears to be a matrimonial dispute between applicant nos.2 to 5 with respondent no.2. Applicant no.3 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant and applicant nos.2 and 5 are the parents of applicant no.1. They are unnecessarily dragged in the criminal proceedings by respondent no.2 in this complaint. Considering the facts and circumstances of present case and after examining the matter in its totality, this Court is satisfied that applicant nos.2 to 5 are the close relatives of respondent no.2 and no specific allegations are made against them to attract Section 494 of the IPC and no purpose would be served by proceedings further in the FIR in question against them. 7. The complaint being II-C.R.No.18 of 2014 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist.: Patan for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as proceedings arising therefrom qua applicant no.2-Patel Raiben Kanjibhai, applicant no.3-Patel Lataben Tusharbhai, applicant no.4-Patel Meenaben daughter of Kanjibhai wife of Mineshbhai and applicant no.5-Patel Mulchandbhai Manabhai stands quashed and set aside qua applicant nos.2 to 5. Present application is partly allowed and accordingly, stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Present application is partly allowed and accordingly, stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the concerned police station as well concerned Court through fax or e-mail forthwith.