AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ilesh J. Vora, J
This quashing application by the original accused has been preferred in relation to the FIR being CR No. I-11205003200022 of 2020 registered with Mahila Police Station, Bhuj for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. D.M. Varandani and Mr. Sudhir Khanna for the respective parties.
The brief facts giving rise to file present application are that, the second respondent Ms. Rakhi Chetangiri has lodged the aforesaid FIR against her husband and in-laws, inter-alia, alleging that she has been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the husband and his relatives. The marriage between the parties took place on 21.05.2010. After one month of the marriage, the husband and wife went to Mumbai and settled their permanently. According to her case, initial 5 years, went smooth but thereafter, the husband started harassing her as he did not like the birth of two daughters and also tortured her on the petty issue of household works. So far as applicants are concerned, it is alleged that, they have aided and abetted the husband in committing the offence of cruelty. On the issue of dowry, it is alleged that, the husband and in-laws used to force her to bring a cash amount from parental home and the sister-in-law, who is residing near the matrimonial home, has also supported the illegal act of the husband and lastly, on 26.05.2020, she was driven out from the matrimonial home because, the husband wants a divorce.
Being aggrieved with the registration of the FIR, the in-laws i.e. father-in-law, two brother-in-law and sister in law have preferred this quashing petition.
Mr. D.M. Varandani, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicants has submitted that, this is a case of false implication. The applicants are residents of district Kutch, whereas, since the marriage, the second respondent with her husband living at Mumbai and therefore, at no point of time, they had shared the house and therefore, the allegations are false, frivolous and being alleged with a view to harass the applicants. In such circumstances, he would urge that, prima-facie, no offence is made out qua the applicants and thus, by exercising inherent powers, this Court, in order to prevent the misuse of the process, may quash the questioned FIR.
On the other hand Mr. Khanna, learned counsel has submitted that, the in-laws applicants are responsible, as, as and when the husband and wife came to native at Naliya, the wife – second respondent, on the issue of daughters, harassed mentally and physically and when opportunity arise, they always abets the husband in committing the offence alleged. In such circumstances, let the investigation be permitted to complete.
The issue falls for consideration, as to whether the FIR and consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers of this Court?
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and on careful reading of the FIR, it reveals that, after the marriage, the wife and husband had gone to Mumbai and since long, they are living there. The applicants are residing at Naliya, Kutch-Bhuj, whereas, the married sister-in-law is living with husband at Bhuj. There is serious allegations made against the husband with respect to birth of daughters and other issues of family. In such circumstances, this Court is of prima-facie view that due to matrimonial dispute of husband and wife, the wife has initiated the criminal proceedings against the in-laws by making vague and general allegations which do not fall under the definition of ‘cruelty’ and ‘demand of dowry’. In such circumstances, the allegations made in the FIR qua the applicants accepted to be true on its face value, do not constitute any offence or make out a case for trial.
For the reasons aforementioned, the case of the applicants falls under the parameters of quashing as carved out in the case of Bhajanlal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604).
Resultantly, the application succeeds. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extend. The FIR being CR No. I-112052203200022 of 2020 registered with Mahila Police Station, Bhuj, and other consequential proceedings thereto against present applicants are hereby quashed.
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.