Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 943 (GUJ)

Vijaybhai Chauthman Agrawal v. State Of Gujarat

2023-08-04

M.R.MENGDEY

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. By filing the present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Quash and set aside FIR registered vide C.R. I 19/14 registered with the UMRA Police Station, Surat qua the present applicant. (B) Pending the admission and or final hearing of the present application be pleased to stay the investigation in connection with FIR registered vide C.R. I 19/14 registered with the UMRA Police Station, Surat qua the present applicant. (C) Pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Daifraz Havewalla appearing for the Applicant. He submitted that the Applicant herein happens to be the brotherin- law of the first informant, who was living separately in Calcutta at the time of incident. The marriage span between the Respondent No.2 and her husband was of more than 20 years and, during the said span of 20 years, the first informant had never raised any alarm as regards any harassment by her in-laws. The present FIR has been lodged by the first informant only as her relationship with her husband went sour. He also submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR against the present Applicant are general in nature and no specific role is attributed to the present Applicant in commission of the offence in question. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application. 3. The Application is vehemently opposed by learned APP Ms. Vrunda C. Shah. She submitted that as per the FIR, the present Applicant had instigated the husband of the first informant to demand a dowry from her and thus the specific allegation is levelled against the present Applicant, which clearly attracts the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against him. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application. 4. Though served, nobody appears for Respondent No.2 – Original Complainant. 5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per the averments made in the FIR, the present Applicant who happens to be the brother-in-law (devar) of the first informant was living together with his brother and the first informant for some time. Thereafter the present Applicant had shifted to Calcutta and, at the time of incident, he was staying at Calcutta. 7. 6. As per the averments made in the FIR, the present Applicant who happens to be the brother-in-law (devar) of the first informant was living together with his brother and the first informant for some time. Thereafter the present Applicant had shifted to Calcutta and, at the time of incident, he was staying at Calcutta. 7. What is alleged against the present Applicant in the FIR is to the effect that the present Applicant along with the husband of first informant was taking up quarrel with the first informant for sundry matters and used to verbally abuse her and give kicks and fist blows to her. They also demanded dowry from her. It is also alleged against the Applicant that he had instigated his brother i.e. husband of the first informant to drive her out of the house if she does not bring dowry from her parental house. In the year 2012 an attempt was made to set her ablaze. 8. It is required to be noted that the marriage span of the first informant and her husband was of 20 long years. The first informant, in her FIR, has not specifically stated as to when the incident alleged against the present Applicant in the FIR had taken place. Moreover, these allegations, taken at their face value, appear to be superfluous and the same appear not to bear any substance. It is also required to be noted that the Applicant has been living separately at Calcutta for considerably long time prior to the FIR. 9. The first informant, in the FIR has mentioned that her husband is suffering from HIV. The ailment from which the husband of the first informant was suffering, appears to be a triggering point for the first informant to lodge the present FIR. It appears that after her husband having been found to be suffering from HiV, the relations of the first informant with her husband appear to have strained, which appears to have given rise to the present FIR. 10. Considering these aspects, it appears that there is no point in continuing with the present proceedings, rather it would be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the present Application deserves to be allowed. 11. Under the circumstances, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. Considering these aspects, it appears that there is no point in continuing with the present proceedings, rather it would be an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the present Application deserves to be allowed. 11. Under the circumstances, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 AIR 694, the present Application is allowed. The FIR being I-CR No. 19 of 2014 registered with Umra Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and all other consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed and set aside so far as it relates to the present Applicant. Rule is made absolute.