When court should quash prosecution U/S 498A of IPC against family members of husband?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2180 of 2015

RITESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI RUPARELIYA & 3
V
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1

CORAM: MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 10/11/2017

1. This application is not pressed so far as the applicant
No.1 (husband) is concerned. The same is disposed of
accordingly as not pressed.

2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the
following reliefs;

“(7.1) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
admit and allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Application.
7.2) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash
and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.II-30/15 registered in
Mahila Police Station, Rajkot for the offences punishable
u/s. 498(A), 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
7.3) Pending the admission and final disposal of this
petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the FIR
being C.R. No.II-30/15 registered in Mahila Police Station,
Rajkot for the offences punishable u/s.498(A), 323 and
114 of Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.
7.4) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit, just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice.”
2. It appears from the materials on record that the
respondent No.2 wife got married with the applicant No.1 on
7
th December, 2008. In the wedlock, a son was born named
Henil. Henil, as on date, is 7 years of age. It appears that the
matrimonial problems cropped up between the husband and
wife and which led to the filing of the first information report.
3. On 30th October, 2017, the following order was passed;
“The applicant No.1 Riteshbhai Rameshbhai Rupareliya

READ  Husband Father, Mother acquitted in False dowry case

(husband) is directed to personally remain present before
this Court on 07.11.2017. The respondent No.2-
Falguniben Rupareliya shall also remain personally
present before this Court.
This Court would like to explore the possibility of some
amicable settlement between the parties keeping in mind
that a son is born in the wedlock.
Post the matter on 07.11.2017 on top of the board. “
4. On 7th November, 2017, the following order was passed;
“Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 30th
October 2017, the applicant No.1 Riteshbhai Rameshbhai
Rupareliya (husband) is personally present in the Court
today. The respondent No.2 Falguniben wife of
Riteshbhai Rameshbhai Rupareliya along with her son
Henil is also personally present. I tried my best to
convince the husband to reconcile, more particularly, in
the interest of the minor son. However, it seems that the
relationships have soured to a considerable extent. The
husband is quite adamant that he would not reconcile. In
the wake of such attitude of the husband, I do not see
any chances of settlement. The matter will have to be
heard on its own merits. Since the matter has been
admitted, post the matter for final hearing on 10th
November 2017 on top of the Board.”
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of
the view that no case is made out of any harassment or cruelty
within the meaning of section 498(A) of the IPC so far as the
applicants Nos.2, 3 and 4 are concerned. I take notice of the
fact that the applicant No.2 is the father-in-law, the applicant
No.3 is the mother-in-law and the applicant No.4 is the sisterin-law.
6. I am inclined to accept the case put up by the applicants
Nos.2, 3 and 4 in this petition. This application, therefore,

READ  Divorce Petition can be Amended later stage

succeeds and is hereby allowed so far as the applicants Nos. 2,
3 and 4 are concerned. The first information report being C.R.
No.II-30 of 2015 registered at the Mahila Police Station, Rajkot
is hereby quashed. The Investigating Officer shall now
proceed further with the investigation of the first information
report so far as the applicant No.1 husband is concerned. Let
appropriate action be taken by the police officer concerned in
this regard at the earliest. 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 *