Former Wife’ Not A ‘Relative’ Of Husband And Can’t Be Prosecuted, 498A IPC. Quashed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 19574 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

HONEYBEN ASHOKBHAI PATEL….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR BHUNESH C RUPERA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CR MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. DEVNANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 30/11/2017

JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, the applicant-original accused No.2 seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1654 of 2012 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara arising from a first information report being C.R. No.I-96 of 2012 registered before the Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under sections 498-A read with 114 of the IPC.

2. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.2 got married with one Rakeshkumar Bhavsar in the year 1995. In the wedlock, two children were born. On 29.06.2001, Rakeshkumar Bhavsar passed away. After about nine years from the date of the demise of Rakeshkumar Bhavsar, the respondent No.2 got married with one Bhavinbhai, i..e, the original accused No.1. Bhavinbhai was married to the applicant herein. The marriage of Bhavinbhai with the applicant was dissolved in a customary manner. It appears that Bhavinbhai, after getting married to the respondent No.2 herein, went back to his divorced wife, i.e., the applicant herein. This led to the matrimonial disputes between the respondent No.2 and her husband, namely, Bhavinbhai-original accused No.1. In the dispute between the husband and wife, the applicant, who happens to be the first wife of Bhavinbhai, has been arraigned as an accused. I am informed that the applicant herein has also now got married for the second time.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Nov 30 23:37:44 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/19574/2015 JUDGMENT parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of the IPC are spelt out so far as the applicant herein is concerned. Let us assume for the moment that the husband of the respondent No.2 went back to his first wife, i.e., the applicant herein, the fact remains that as the marriage was dissolved, the applicant herein would not fall within the ambit of “the relative of the husband”. Even otherwise, there is no case worth the name against the applicant. The applicant may be the cause for the matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife, bu for that, she cannot be prosecuted for the offence under section 498-A of the IPC.

4. In the result, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1654 of 2012 pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara arising from a first information report being C.R. No.I-96 of 2012 registered before the Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *