Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 789 (GUJ)

Vinayakrav Kashiram Salve v. State Of Gujarat

2024-04-05

ILESH J.VORA

body2024
ORDER : 1. By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the applicants – original accused, who are facing the charges for the offences of cruelty and demand of dowry have preferred this application for quashing of the FIR being CR No.11210050221310 of 2022 registered with Rander Police Station, Dist.: Surat, for the offences 498A, 323, 504, and 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Manan Patel, Ms. Urmila J. Desai and Mr. Jay Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respective parties. 3. Brief facts revels from the record are that the applicants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second respondent – Reshma Salve. The marriage of the second respondent was solemnized on 27.07.2021 with the accused Mukesh Salve. This is a second marriage of the second respondent. Her first marriage took place in the year 2010 and after getting divorce from her earlier husband, she again married with the accused no. 3. The applicants and the husband are living at Mumbai and after the marriage, the second respondent went to Mumbai. The husband having a bakery shop, was used to leave the home in the early morning and come at late night. As a result, the matrimonial dispute arose between husband and wife and on making complaint, the quarrel took place between them. So far as mother-in-law is concerned, it is alleged that, on the petty issue of household works, she was harassed by her and threatened her that, she will drive her out from the home. It is alleged that on 21.10.2022, due to dispute she was beaten up and husband administered a threat that he will commit a suicide. In such circumstances, fade with the issues, the FIR being lodged against the applicants, inter-alia, alleging that during the marriage span, she was subjected to harassment by the applicants and the husband, whereby, they have committed act of cruelty, as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The applicants, who are parents of the husband, have preferred this application, inter-alia stating that, this is a case of false implication as by making casual and vague allegations, they have been roped into alleged offence and therefore, prima-facie, if the allegations believed to be true against them, no offence is disclosed or make out. 5. Mr. 4. The applicants, who are parents of the husband, have preferred this application, inter-alia stating that, this is a case of false implication as by making casual and vague allegations, they have been roped into alleged offence and therefore, prima-facie, if the allegations believed to be true against them, no offence is disclosed or make out. 5. Mr. Manan Patel, learned counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that, the applicants are aged parents of the husband and they have nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute with the husband and wife and therefore, the allegations whatever alleged, would not fall under the definition of ‘cruelty’. There is no specific allegation that the applicants have caused physical harm to the wife. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of process of law and court and therefore, to prevent the injustice, the questioned FIR may be quashed. 6. Ms. Urmila Desai, learned advocate appearing for the second respondent submitted that, the High Court at this stage, would not ordinarily entered into a disputed question of fact and when the allegations made in the FIR disclosed the commission of offence, the court may not quash it and allowed the investigation to be continued in the matter. 7. The scope and power of the High Court to quash the first information report is well settled. The power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima-facie decision, unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations, as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, only then, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. The Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising inherent powers under Sections 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. The relevant paragraph reads thus: “102. The Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising inherent powers under Sections 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings. The relevant paragraph reads thus: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 9. Since the FIR in question emanates from matrimonial disputes. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 held and observed that, in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has increased significantly which led in an increased tendency to employ provision such as 498A Indian Penal Code as instruments to settled personal scores against the husband and his relatives. In para-17 of the judgment, it is observed that: “17. ….. this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.”. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the issue falls for my consideration is whether the case is made out for quashing the criminal proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of this Court. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the allegations made in the FIR. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the issue falls for my consideration is whether the case is made out for quashing the criminal proceedings by invoking the inherent powers of this Court. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the allegations made in the FIR. On plain reading of the FIR, it prima-facie appears that, the allegations of harassment are vague and general and how and under which manner the wife was harassed and tortured by the applicants having not been specifically disclosed. The entire dispute with regard to late coming by the husband at home and on complaining about it by the wife, the dispute arose between the parties. Thus, when there is no allegation that, the applicants have caused physical harm and the allegations of harassment, being alleged casually, without any specific instances, involving the applicants in abetting the act of the husband, prima-facie, no offence is made out against the applicants herein. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the case is fully covered by the categories (i) and (vii) as enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and therefore, this Court is convinced that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court and law. 13. Resultantly, the application succeeds. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extend. FIR being CR No.11210050221310 of 2022 registered with Rander Police Station, Dist.: Surat, and other consequential proceedings thereto against present applicants are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The observations made hereinabove are prima-facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present application. The investigation agency as well as the trial Court shall not get influence by the said observation during the investigation as well as at the course of trial. Direct service permitted.