AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the applicants-original accused seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.294 of 2015 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra arising from a first information report lodged by the respondent No.2 herein at the Panchamahal Mahila Police Station being C.R. No.II-10 of 2014 for the offence punishable under sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.2 got married sometime in the year 2012 with the applicant No.1 herein. The allegations levelled by the wife are that as she was unable to conceive, the applicants started harassing her in one way or the other. She has also alleged that there was a demand of some gold and Rs.2 Lac in cash. There are also allegations that the applicants used to harass her on petty issues like the household work etc. At the end of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences enumerated above. The filing of the charge-sheet culminated in the Criminal Case No. 294 of 2015 which is pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra as on date.
On 11th February, 2015, the following order was passed;
"Learned advocate for the applicant does not press present application qua applicants no. 1 and 4. Hence, the application
stands dismissed as not pressed qua applicants no. 1 and 4.
Rule returnable on 07.04.2015. Mr. LB Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1- State.
Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph No.9(B)
Direct service to respondent no.2 through concerned police station is permitted."
Thus, it appears that so far as the applicants Nos.1 and 4 are concerned, this application was not pressed at the threshold. The applicant No.1 is the husband and the applicant No.4 is the cousin of the husband. It appears that having regard to the allegations levelled against the two applicants, the Co-ordinate Bench was not inclined to look into this application for quashing so far as the husband and his cousin is concerned.
I take notice of the fact that the applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law, the applicant No.3 is the father-in-law and the applicant No.5 is the wife of the elder brother of the husband.
It appears that after the marriage, something went wrong and the matrimonial disputes cropped up between the husband and wife. The wife, as usual, approached the police and registered the first information report levelling allegations against one and all. The allegations of harassment and cruelty, so far as the applicants Nos.2, 3 and 5 are concerned, do not inspire any confidence. It appears that the respondent No.2 couldn''t adjust herself in a joint family. The allegations are too general and vague in nature. In such circumstances, I am inclined to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 294 of 2015 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra so far as the applicants Nos. 2,3 and 5 are concerned.
Mr. Gadhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the husband is ready and willing to settle the matter by offering about 3.50 Lac to the wife. Well, if the wife is inclined to accept this amount towards the full and final settlement, then there should not be any difficulty in putting an end to the entire controversy. It is for the wife to take an appropriate decision in this regard. Ultimately, if the matter is settled with the husband, it shall be open for the husband to come back to this Court for quashing of the criminal prosecution.
In the result, this application is allowed in part. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No.294 of 2015 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra are hereby quashed so far as the applicants Nos.2,3 and 5 are concerned. The trial shall now proceed further against the applicants Nos.1 and 4 expeditiously in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.