AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both these applications invoking Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed against
the complaint lodged by Daxaben-respondent No.3 in
both these applications. Respondent No.3-Daxaben
Ravindrabhai Shrimadi is the wife of one Ravindrabhai
Shrimadi, whom she married on 15.05.2002.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12520 of
2010 has been filed by the brother-in-law, father-in-
law and the mother-in-law of Daxaben, whereas,
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12787 of 2010
has been filed by the Sisters-in-law - Saarika and
Shraddhaben and their husbands Ashwinkumar and
Vijaykumar respectively. Daxaben-the complainant,
apart from filing a complaint under Section 498- A,
Section 323, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the
Dowry Act against the husband has roped in the other
family members in such complaint. These applications,
therefore, have been filed by the family members
except the husband.
The complainant-Daxaben, has filed C.R No.I-
42/2010 with the Mahila Police Station at Ahmedabad on
29.07.2010. The complaint is annexed with the memo of
the application, when read unfolds the following
story:
3.1 According to the complainant-Daxaben, she is
staying at Ahmedabad. Out of the wedlock with
husband Ravindra, she has a son who is one and
a half year old and a daughter Nandini aged
about seven years. According to the
complainant, she married Ravindra and after the
marriage, she shifted to the matrimonial home
at Mount Abu. Ravindra''s family was a joint
family. The present applicants of both these
applications were residing together.
3.2 According to the complainant, right from the
inception after marriage, she was being
harassed by the family. All of them together
would taunt her, make her do daily chores like
cleaning of toilet and would beat her etc,. The
complainant further indicated in her complaint
that the father-in-law and the mother-in-law
had insisted that the ornaments that she was
wearing and which she had brought on her
marriage, be given to them as it was unsafe for
the wife to wear such ornaments in a tourist
place like Abu.
3.3 On repeated demand for money, her mother was
compelled to part with large sums of money, buy
a flat at Ahmedabad out of such funds. The
husband shifted to Ahmedabad with his brother
and wife- accused Nos. 4 and 5, applicants of
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12787
and applicants Nos. 1 and 4 of Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 12787. Repeated
attempts were made to taunt her under the
pretext that they would get her husband married
to her Bhabhi''s sister. In the complaint, she
narrates an episode which occurred in March
2010. When she was at Abu and her daughter was
down with fever and son with Pneumonia,
repeated prayers for the husband to come over
to Abu failed. In order to get better medical
treatment, when she went with her children to
Ahmedabad the in-laws and the husband left
Ahmedabad and it was her neighgbours and
acquaintances in Ahmedabad who gave her the
necessary help that her children would get
appropriate treatment. This in short is the
narrative of the complainant as stated in her
complaint and apart from the other sections
invoked Section 498-A against her in-laws and
other relatives. The complaint was filed on
29.07.2010.
On record is also an objection filed under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the husband-
Ravindra Shrimadi before the appropriate Civil Court
at Abu filed on 12.07.2010, seeking separation from
his wife alleging that marriage has irretrievably
broken down, and therefore, they need to separate by
an appropriate decree of separation be passed. It may,
however, be added that such objection is not relevant
for the purpose of deciding the issue in the present
case.
Mr Mahendra Vora, learned advocate appearing for
the applicants in both these applications has
contended that on bare reading of the complaint, it is
evident that it cannot be said that the relatives of
the husband are in any manner involved so as to come
within the net of Section 498-A of the IPC . He further
contended that the complaint does not disclose that an
offence of the nature under Section 498-A has been
made out. Mr Mahendra Vora, in support of his
contention that the relatives have been roped in
without any prima facie cause against them, as relied
on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of
Bhaskarlal Sharma and another vs. Monica reported in
(2009) 10 SCC 604. He has also relied on a decision
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 in the case of Geeta
Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another. Mr Vora has further relied on a decision in
a case of Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala and
another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466 to contend that
once ingredients of Section 498 are not been made out,
this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C quash such a complaint and prevent the
abuse of process of law.
Mr. Sanjay Prajapati on the other hand appearing
for Daxaben-the wife-the original complainant has
contended that, reading of the FIR makes it apparent
that wife has been treated cruelly at the hands of her
in-laws. Sufficient material is evident on reading the
complaint to suggest that she has been subject to
cruelty. Harassment of the wife at the hands of the
in-laws would certainly be a case, wherein, Section
498- A has rightly been invoked and the complaint,
therefore, need not be quashed. He further contended
that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C should not be invoked
and the complaint be quashed when investigation into
the matter still needs to be done.
Mr Himanshu Patel, learned APP contended that,
Section 498-A has rightly been invoked by the wife
that when the complaint is read admittedly the
averments indicates that all of them were residing in
a joint family at Mount Abu, and therefore, it is not
a case where the family members have been just roped
in. Mr Patel has categorically drawn my attention to
the contents in the FIR and particularly to the
averments which read to the effect that the accused
Nos. 2 to 5 were continuously pressurizing the wife to
return to her parental home, that she should agree to
a separation. That, the accused Nos. 4 and 5 the
brother-in-law and his wife particularly wife of the
brother-in-law had said that she wanted her sister to
marry the husband. Such averments would lead one to
the conclusion that Section 498-A has been rightly
invoked.
Having given anxious consideration to the case on
hand and having read the complaint in its entirety,
what comes out from reading the complaint is that the
complainant has made out and levelled allegations
about the harassment, taunting and incidents where the
in-laws have asked her to bring the dowry. The First
Information Report when carefully perused, does
indicate levelling of such allegations, however,
merely allegations of harassment qua the in-laws do
not state that they used to taunt and harass without
giving specific opportunities except that of the
accused No.5 impressing upon the complainant that she
would want her sister to marry the husband, do not
give such specific opportunities which meet the test
of adequacy of law.
It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498-A
reads thus:
" 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this
section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman tocommit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb
or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand."
In the case of Bhaskarlal Sharma and another vs.
Monica (Supra ) the Supreme Court treated they
complaint filed by the wife under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code. The explanation to Section 498-A
which defines cruelty would amount a wilful conduct
which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health of the woman, or
harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with
a view to exercising her to meet any unlawful demand.
In order that an offence under Section 498-A is
proved, the complainant must make an allegation of
harassment to the extent, so as to, coerce her to meet
any unlawful demand of dowry or any wilful conduct on
the part of the accused of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health.
12 . On reading the First Information Report, in the
facts of the case, a bare reading of the complaint
makes it evident that, though, the in-laws-the present
applicants have been roped in, nothing appears to have
been stated in the complaint so as to lead wife to the
conclusion that their act has driven the wife-Daxaben-
the complainant to harass her to the extent as stated
aforesaid.
Even in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) it has
been held that, when the First Information Report
prima facie does not disclose or there is not enough
material to suggest that the family members have
brought forth a situation that cruelty is evident from
their conduct, Section 498-A should not be invoked.
From a bare reading of the complaint, what is
seen is that, the whole conduct of the complainant is
eventually to rope in all the members of the family
without assigning any specific role to each member of
such family and to show as to how their conduct has
resulted in having them committed cruelty.
Having found that the basic averments in the
complaint so filed are missing, having relied on the
judgments referred to by the learned advocate for the
applicant, particularly, in those referred in the case
of Geeta Mehrotra and Bhaskarlal Sharma, in exercise
of my extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C, I deem it fit to quash the FIR in
question.
For the foregoing reasons, both the applications
are hereby allowed and the FIR being C.R No.I-42/2010
registered with the Mahila Police Station at Ahmedabad
on 29.07.2010, against the present applicants is
hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to
the above extent.