Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1684 (GUJ)

Amrutbhai Parmar v. State Of Gujarat

2022-12-02

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petitioner, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR being C.R. No.I-163 of 2015 registered with Adajan Police Station, District – Surat, for the offence under Sections-498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of I.P.C. 2. The brief facts stated in the complaint are that the complainant got married as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at Bardoli on 17.05.2014 with Smith Parmar. After marriage, she got in dowry several articles and she was discharging her duty as a wife. It is alleged that after some time of marriage, the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law had started giving torture in trifle. It was alleged that the sister-in-law and her husband residing at Sneh Sankul Wadi used to come at her matrimonial house and used to give physical and mental torture. It is further stated that the brother-in-law and his wife had stayed together for 1 & 1/2 months and they also used to taunt her and thereafter they shifted to America. After shifting to America, they used to talk with husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law through video call and used to give mental torture. 2.1 It is further alleged that at the time of marriage, the uncle-in-law Narendrabhai and Amrutbhai had assured the father of the complainant that the studies of the complainant would be continued even after marriage. It is alleged that after marriage, the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband used to give torture by creating hindrance in her studies. It is alleged that the parents of complainant had tried to intervene, they were also abused and husband of sister-in-law Viz.Kiritbhai gave kick and fist blows to him and therefore, father of the complainant brought the complainant back at parental home. When the aforesaid fact was informed to Narendrabhai and Amrutbhai, they also give threat that the complainant has to adjust as per the say of in-laws. 2.2 It is alleged that at the time of Diwali Festival, the uncle of complainant Viz. Arvindbhai telephoned to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and asked to take complainant back and the uncle was asked to husband and upon talking with husband, the husband sent message to the complainant that if she wants to stay with husband then she has to cut relations with her parents. Arvindbhai telephoned to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and asked to take complainant back and the uncle was asked to husband and upon talking with husband, the husband sent message to the complainant that if she wants to stay with husband then she has to cut relations with her parents. With a view to save marriage life, she went to matrimonial home at Ukai and at that time, the father of complainant and complainant talked with the brother-in-law staying at America, he takes decision in the house and his decision is final and the matter is still not over and thus, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. It is alleged that the complainant was also forced to undergo abortion and thereafter she was sent to her parental home in a bus and as the condition of the complainant was not good, she was taken to Bardoli hospital, she was asked to take treatment at the hospital, in which, she has earlier taken there and therefore, her parents again dropped her to matrimonial home and again after three months, she was subjected to physical and mental torture and given some medicine forcefully and therefore, she was taken to hospital and the doctor has informed the police and thereafter she was sent to her parents house. 2.3 It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant had gone to her matrimonial home alongwith her cousin for taking back her articles and at that time, she was asked by all accused to bring either BMW Car or Rs.30 Lakh for husband so that he can settle in America. Thus, the complainant registered complaint being C.R. No.I-163 of 2015 registered with Adajan Police Station, District – Surat, for the offence under Sections- 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of I.P.C. against the applicants- accused. 3. Heard Ms. Kruti Shah, learned advocate appearing for the applicants – accused; Mr. Adeshara, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 – complainant and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present application qua the applicants no.1 to 7 has not been pressed by Ms. Shah learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicants as per order dated 15.07.2016 passed by this Court while issuing rule in the matter, which reads thus:- “1. 4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present application qua the applicants no.1 to 7 has not been pressed by Ms. Shah learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicants as per order dated 15.07.2016 passed by this Court while issuing rule in the matter, which reads thus:- “1. The petitioner No.1 to 7 shall move an application for discharge, as the charge-sheet has already been filed. If any adverse order are passed, they have sought permission to approach this Court and the same is permitted. 2. This Court has not entered into the merits of this application, as the charge-sheet is already filed in this matter. The court concerned shall decide their applications without being influenced by the order of this Court. 3. This petition is being considered qua petitioners No. 8 and 9. As far as petitioners No. 8 and 9 are concerned, they are residing at USA since last 10 years. The marriage of the complainant was performed in the year 2014 and she continues to reside in India. 4. Rule. Ms. Chetna Shah, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent -State. 5. The respondent No.2 be served through the concerned Police Station. Direct service is permitted. 6. The stay of the proceedings is granted qua petitioners No.8 and 9, qua the complaint being I-CR No.163 of 2015 registered with Adajan Police Station, District Surat. 7. During the pendency of this petition, the stay granted by this Court shall not come in the way of concerned Court qua rest of the petitioners as stated here-in- above.” 5. Ms. Shah further submitted that the applicants no.8 and 9 are the elder brother and sister-in-law of the applicant and they are staying at USA since 10 years. Ms. Shah, learned advocate submitted that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are false and the applicants never harassed the respondent no.2 and they are unnecessarily roped in by the complainant. 6. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State submitted that appropriate order be passed considering the nature of allegations levelled against the writ-applicants herein. 7. In the facts of the present case, the allegations against the applicants no.8 and 9 are vague in nature. 6. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State submitted that appropriate order be passed considering the nature of allegations levelled against the writ-applicants herein. 7. In the facts of the present case, the allegations against the applicants no.8 and 9 are vague in nature. From the perusal of documents on record, no specific averment is alleged in the impugned FIR against the applicants no.8 and 9, who are the Jeth & Jethani and they are residing in USA. Therefore, the offence registered under the provision of IPC would not be applicable. On perusal of materials on record, it is evident that the respondent no.2 herein resided with the rest of the applicants as stated in the FIR. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the following proposition of law:- (A) In the case of Neelu Chopra and Anr. vs. Bharti, reported in (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 Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr., reported in (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. (28) It is necessary here to remember the words of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699 which read as follows: - 7. (28) It is necessary here to remember the words of this Court in State of Karnataka v. 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. 9. In view of aforesaid ratio as referred above and facts of the present case, the allegations levelled against the writ applicants No.8 to 9 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. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these writ-applicants in the commission of offence. 10. The writ-applicants herein have not pressed the present writ-application qua writ-applicants No.1 to 7 respectively. 11. In view of the aforesaid findings as stated above, the writ-application is allowed qua the writ-applicants No.8 and 9. The F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-163 of 2015 registered with Adajan Police Station, District – Surat, for the offence under Sections- 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of I.P.C. is quashed and set aside qua writ-applicants No.8 and 9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.