Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 382 (GUJ)

Parvbhai Rajeshbhai Ganatra v. State of Gujarat

2025-04-07

J.C.DOSHI

body2025
ORDER : (J.C. DOSHI, J.) 1. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that while admitting the matter as per order dated 18/01/2023, petition qua petitioner no.1 who is husband came to be dismissed as not pressed. 2. By this application, the petitioners no.2 to 4 who are in-laws seeks to pray for quashment of the Criminal Case No. 16844 of 2021 registered before learned Magistrate, Rajkot arising out of the chargesheet submitted pursuing to offence registered vide C. R. No. 11208001210049 with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC. 3. The facts as emerging from the FIR are that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 got married as per the customs prevailing in their caste prior to six years of the lodging of the FIR. It is alleged that for the initial period they were in good terms and respondent no.1 also used to come and stay with her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that taunting were made at the hands of the petitioners and she does not know anything about cooking and computer work and thereby gave her physical and mental torture. Thus, the respondent no.1 left the matrimonial home and and ultimately the FIR came to be lodged. 4. Insofar as the petitioners no.2 to 4 are concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that they are father in law and mother in law of the victim and they have never given any harassment as averred in the FIR. He would further submit that they have not committed any cruelty as alleged in the FIR. Leaned advocate for the petitioners would submit that even if the allegations mentioned in the FIR are accepted in their entirety then also it does not make out any prima facie case against the petitioners no.2 to 4 and vague allegations are made against them. By making above submissions, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit to allow this petition qua petitioners no.2 to 4. 5. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.2. 6. Learned APP while adopting the arguments of the learned advocate for the first informant would submit that petitioners may be put to trial as the charge-sheet has been filed against them and therefore he would submit to dismiss the present petition. 7. 5. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.2. 6. Learned APP while adopting the arguments of the learned advocate for the first informant would submit that petitioners may be put to trial as the charge-sheet has been filed against them and therefore he would submit to dismiss the present petition. 7. Apt to note that allegations levelled in the FIR are general and vague in nature. In order to establish offence under section 498(A) of IPC, one need to averred that there was harassment or cruelty. Cruelty means conduct likely to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health physically or mentally to the complainant or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the averments made in the FIR, this Court does not find any supporting material in regards to allegations made against the petitioners no.2 to 4 involving in the commission of offence of demand of dowry and adducing any threat of coercion. A bare reading of the FIR does not reveal that victim was beaten and given mental torture at the hands of the petitioners no.2 to 4 and therefore allegations against petitioner no.2 to 4 are not substantiate; without any corroborating piece of evidence in support of the FIR. To be noted further that general and spacious allegations are made against the petitioner no.2 to 4 but that would itself is sufficient to prove their involvement and therefore in absence of any specific incident showing their involvement in the offence in question alleging against them, this Court does not find any substance in the FIR qua petitioners no.2 to 4. 9. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh [ 2012 (10) SCC 741 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 15, 16,17, 20,21 and 25 as under :- "15. 9. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh [ 2012 (10) SCC 741 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 15, 16,17, 20,21 and 25 as under :- "15. Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature in the case of Ramesh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at 738 allegations were made in a complaint against the husband, the in laws, husband's brother and sister who were all the petitioners before the High Court wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police in the court of Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. Thereupon, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on 13.2.2002. Four of the accused-appellants were arrested and released on bail by the magistrate at Mumbai. The appellants had filed petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in complaint case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition observing that the grounds raised by the petitioners were all subject matters to be heard by the trial court for better appreciation after conducting full trial as the High Court was of the view that it was only desirable to dismiss the criminal original petition and the same was also dismissed. However, the High Court had directed the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the appellants. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the special leave petition was filed in this Court giving rise to the appeals therein where threefold contentions were raised viz., (i) that the allegations are frivolous and without any basis; (ii) even according to the FIR, no incriminating acts were done within the jurisdiction of Trichy Police Station and the court at Trichy and, therefore, the learned magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and (iii) taking cognizance of the alleged offence at that stage was barred under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C. as it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. Apart from the subsequent two contentions, it was urged that the allegations under the FIR do not make out any offence of which cognizance could be taken. 17. 17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Section 498 A, 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed. 20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao V/s. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes. 21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power. 25. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power. 25. In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings against them, inter-alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections 498A,/323/504/506 including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court seems to have overlooked all the pleas that were raised and rejected the petition on the solitary ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants to approach the trial court." 10. At this juncture, I may refer to the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] “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. (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 noncognizable 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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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.” 11. In view of above, allowing FIR further into trial would be abuse of process of law. Criminal proceedings started is found to be initiated with intention of taking vengeance by giving civil litigation color of criminality. The petition deserves consideration. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. In view of above, allowing FIR further into trial would be abuse of process of law. Criminal proceedings started is found to be initiated with intention of taking vengeance by giving civil litigation color of criminality. The petition deserves consideration. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Criminal Case No. 16844 of 2021 registered before learned Magistrate, Rajkot arising out of the chargesheet submitted pursuing to offence registered vide C. R. No. 11208001210049 with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City qua petitioners no.2 to 4 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The trial Court shall not influence by any of the observations made herein above in regards to the trial of petitioner no.1 and it shall decide the case on its own merits.