AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present application has been filed by the
applicants praying for quashing of Criminal Complaint
being C.R. No.II-4/2012 filed before the Savarkundla
Town Police Station.
It is the case of the complainant who is the wife
of the applicant No.1 that the applicants, six in
number, NO.1 being the husband and 2 to 6 being the
in-laws harassed her during the subsistence of her
marriage with the applicant No.1. It is her case that
six to seven months prior to this complaint all of
them had returned to Ahmedabad, as they suffered
financial loss in their business at U.S.A. The
applicants would approach her parents with demands for
dowry and as her father could not entertain such
request, she was locked up in a room and physically
assaulted by her husband and in-laws. This complaint
was filed on 28-01-2012.
Mr Deep D Vyas, learned advocate has appeared for
the applicants and stated that the complaint lodged by
the respondent No.2 under Section 498(A), 506(2) and
114 of the Indian Penal Code r/w. Sections 3 and 7 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act is a misconceived complaint.
According to Mr. Vyas, relying on the photocopies of
the passports, annexed to this application it is his
case that the applicants were not even present at the
time when the complainant alleges that an offence was
committed.
Mr Vyas further points out that by an order dated
30.11.2011, the Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa
county, dissolved the marriage of the applicant and
the complainant. Once such marriage was dissolved on
28.11.2011, under the signatures of both the applicant
No.1 and the respondent No.2 and Court order was
passed accordingly on 30.11.2011, the complaint
itself, filed on 28.1.2012 was an after thought.
Mr Vyas has also invited my attention to the
subsequent Memorandum of Understanding signed between
the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 dated
12.01.2012 dissolving such marriage. According to Mr
Vyas, therefore, the facts suggests that the complaint
has been engineered only with a view to harass the
applicants.
Ms Nisha Thakore, learned advocate for the
respondent No.2, original complainant, stated that
reading of the complaint itself makes it evident that
during the subsistence of the marriage between her and
the applicant No.1, she was harassed and demands for
dowry were made. She was constrained to file the F.I.R
as she was pressurized to give dowry. That she was
pressurized to sign the document of divorce and such
document produced with the petition were obtained
under fraud and in affidavit to that effect has been
filed. She further submitted that the Court should not
interfere in such proceedings.
Having heard learned advocates for the
respective parties, though the jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is restrictive, however, when facts
explicitly point to situation where the complaint, on
the face of it appears to be ingenuine, the Court
would not refuse to step in.
After the marriage was solemnized between the applicant No.1 and the complainant / respondent No.2
in the year 2007, the respondent No.2 has only thought
it fit to bring out the story of harassment and
torture at the hands of her husband and in-laws after
having accompanied them to the United States of
America. Having agreed to mutually separate and having
obtained decree from the U.S Court on 30.11.2011 and
having entered into a Deed of Divorce on 12.01.2012,
the respondent No.2 original complainant has
approached the police authorities only on 28.01.2012.
Two and a half months after the decree of divorce has
been passed.
Facts therefore suggest that the respondent No.2
initially having accompanied her husband and in-laws
to the U.S returned with them to Ahmedabad. Not
finding any alternative, under the pretext of being
pressurized to obtain divorce in the United States,
she approached the local police at Savarkundla and
lodged the Report before the Police Station. This
clearly is a after thought to extract her pound of
flesh from her husband and her in-laws with whom she
entered into a compromise and gave a decent burial to
her matrimonial dispute on 12.01.2012.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that
case is invoking Section 498(A) have been filed only
with a view to create harassment to the family of the
in-laws. This is one such case where on facts I find
that the First Information Report engaging into a
dispute with her in-laws was done purely with a view
to cause harassment.
First Information Report so filed, is nothing but
abuse of process of law. This Court should in exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, in the facts of this case deems it
fit to quash the complaint on hand.
Accordingly, C.R No.II-4/2012 before the
Savarkundla Town Police station is hereby quashed and
set aside. The application is allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the above extent.