Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1577 (GUJ)

BHAVESHKUMAR GOVINDBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2022-11-15

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2022
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2-original complainant. 2. None appears for the applicants. 3. By way of present application, the applicants has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Quash the FIR being registered as II-C.R. No. 3007/2013, at Himmatnagar Mahila Police Station, Sabarkantha for the offence under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2), 494 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent filing of Charge-sheet and Criminal Case No. 1887 of 2014 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prantij. (B) Pending admission and/or final disposal of this petition, further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1887 of 2014 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prantij, be stayed. (C) Pass such other orders as though fit in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts germane for adjudication of the present dispute as stated in the application herein by the applicant as stated under: 4.1 That the marriage between the present applicant No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 was solemnized as per rites and rituals of their community on 17.02.2004 at Village-Poglu, Tahsil-Prantij, Sabarkantha. That the complainant and the applicant No. 2 in the initial two years of the marriage led a healthy and contended life and that during that period the complainant was employed as government teacher (Vidya-sahayak) at Karimpura, Talod. The complainant also states that at that relevant time the husband of the complainant i.e. the present applicant No. 1 who was unemployed till then, had secured a government job as teacher at Village Pegia, Tahsil Dhanera, Banaskantha and thus resultantly the complainant was left alone with the applicant No. 2 and 3 at complainant's matrimonial home. 4.2 The complainant further states that the applicant No. 1 was employed and had to live away due to reasons of employment, the applicant nos. 2 and 3 started harassing the complainant by passing sarcastic comments that the complainant's father did not give anything by way of dowry in her marriage. 4.3 The complainant also states that at time when her husband used to visit them the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 used to influence the applicant no. 1 and make him pick quarrels with the complainant on trivial issues. 4.3 The complainant also states that at time when her husband used to visit them the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 used to influence the applicant no. 1 and make him pick quarrels with the complainant on trivial issues. 4.4 The complainant also states that she left her matrimonial house on her own volition in 2006 and thereafter, the applicants herein by mediation of their relatives approached the present complainant and her father for taking the complainant back to her matrimonial home and the complainant did go back to live with the present applicant No. 1. However, subsequently the applicants herein chucked her out of her matrimonial home and the complainant had no other redress but to live at her parental house at Poglu. 4.5 The complainant further states that due to extra-marital relations of the applicant No. 1 herein the applicant No. 1 is adamant upon divorcing the present complainant and as a result of the same expelled the complainant out of her matrimonial house. In view of above, the respondent No. 2 was constrained to register the impugned FIR as stated above. 5. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2-original complainant submitted that the FIR being II-C.R. No. 3007 of 2013 registered with Himmatnagar Mahila Police Station, Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2), 494 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the respondent No. 2-original complainant has culminated into charge-sheet on 15.01.2013 being charge-sheet No. 15 of 2013, which is duly produced on record at Page No. 14 and Criminal Case No. 1887 of 2014 which is pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prantij. For the aforesaid reasons also this Court may not interfere at this stage, exercising its discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the applicants herein be relegated to trial. 6. Ms. Vrunda C. Shah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submitted that appropriate order be passed considering the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants herein. 7. Having gone through the contentions of the complaint in question which is duly produced on record at Annexure-A, no specific allegation can be said to have averred by the respondent No. 2 against applicants Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that the parents i.e. applicant Nos. 7. Having gone through the contentions of the complaint in question which is duly produced on record at Annexure-A, no specific allegation can be said to have averred by the respondent No. 2 against applicants Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that the parents i.e. applicant Nos. 2 and 3 influenced the applicant No. 1 to pick quarrels with the respondent No. 2 on trivial issues. The law is well settled that the general and vague allegations would not be sustainable against the applicants Nos.2 and 3 herein. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the following position of law: (a) In the case of Neelu Chopra and Another vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 , paragraphs 9 to 12 read thus: “(9) In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the Sections and the language of those Sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. (10) When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would-be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants. (11) The High Court has merely mentioned that the allegation in the complaint are of retaining jewellery articles in possession of the husband and the petitioners. Now if the articles were in the possession of the husband, there is no question of the present appellants being in possession of the appellants. (11) The High Court has merely mentioned that the allegation in the complaint are of retaining jewellery articles in possession of the husband and the petitioners. Now if the articles were in the possession of the husband, there is no question of the present appellants being in possession of the appellants. This is apart from the fact that it has already been expressed by us that there is no mention of the date on which the said ornaments, if any, were entrusted to the appellants or even the date when they were demanded back and were refused to be given back by the appellants or any one of them. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A, IPC is concerned, we do not find any material or allegation worth the name against the present appellants. All the allegations appear to be against the Rajesh. (12) This is apart from the fact that despite service of notice, the complainant neither appeared before this Court nor engaged any counsel to represent her. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. It is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is quashed. The complaint is quashed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.” (b) In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another, (2019) 11 SCC 706, paragraphs 29 and 30 read thus: “(27) We are of the opinion that the present case falls under the 1st, 3rd and 5th category set out in the Para 102 of the judgment in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). In such a situation, the High Court erred in dismissing the petition of the Appellants filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. In such a situation, the High Court erred in dismissing the petition of the Appellants filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. (28) It is necessary here to remember the words of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 which read as follows: 7.......In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.” (c) In the case of Natubhai Somabhai Rohit and Others vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Misc. Application No. 20679 of 2013, paragraphs No. 6 to 9 read thus: “6. Besides to the generality and vagueness of the allegations, if the ingredients necessary to make out the offence under 498A, IPC are looked into, as observed by the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma vs. Monika, (2009) 10 SCC 604 , the allegations of harassment should be of such nature and extent so as to coerce the wife to meet any unlawful demand of dowry or any other unlawful conduct on part of the accused of a nature which is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. Closely examining the allegations in the instant FIR, these elements as well as the degree of seriousness in the allegations could be said to be in wanting. 7. Closely examining the allegations in the instant FIR, these elements as well as the degree of seriousness in the allegations could be said to be in wanting. 7. The tendency to rope in all the family members in the FIR speaks for themselves and in such circumstances, the requirements of alleging specific role for each of the members becomes necessary, for which the indispensable aspects that all should stay together. The Supreme Court has viewed with suspicion the conduct of disgruntled complainant in bringing into picture the entire family and the family members to level allegations under section 498A against all of them. 8. In G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad, (2003) SCC 693, the Supreme Court held that a complaint relating to matrimonial dispute where all the members are roped into irrespective of role, becomes liable to be quashed. The court observed as under, “There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But, little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their ‘young’ days in chasing their ‘cases’ in different courts.” (Para 12) 9. Having regard to above position and the facts cumulatively operating, when the allegations are shown to be non-specific and not of the degree of seriousness contemplated in law and when the applicants accused are shown to be living separately coupled with attendant facts and aspects noticed and noted above, the allegations become too bald to be sustained in law. Applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are aged about 70 years and 90 years respectively. Applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are aged about 70 years and 90 years respectively. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the FIR and the allegations therein turned out to be abuse of process of law and could be said to be only for wrecking vengeance.” 9. In view of the aforesaid ratio as referred above and facts of the present case, the allegations levelled against the applicants No. 2 and 3 can be said to be vague and devoid of merit. The dispute is mainly between the husband and wife. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. Looking to the complaint in question, the complaint is sadly vague. The allegations levelled against the applicants No. 2 and 3 in the impugned FIR being II-C.R. No. 3007 of 2013 registered with Himmatnagar Mahila Police Station, Sabarkantha while being vague has culminated into charge-sheet which is also produced on record at page No. 14 which records no role attributed to the applicants herein. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings as stated above, the application is allowed qua applicants No. 2 and 3 to the aforesaid extent. The FIR being II-C.R. No. 3007 of 2013, registered at Himmatnagar Mahila Police Station, Sabarkantha for the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2), 494 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequent filing of charge-sheet being Charge-sheet No. 15 of 2013 and Criminal Case No. 1887 of 2014 pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prantij are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant No. 2 (father-in-law) and applicant No. 3 (mother-in-law) and the same shall continue qua applicant No. 1 (Husband). This is only with regard to the present proceedings and if any other proceedings which are pending between the parties, the same would continue in accordance with law. It is clarified that the aforesaid order shall not stall for any further proceedings which are pending between the parties. 11. With the aforesaid, the present application is partly allowed. 12. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.