498A/DP Quash against Husband & In-laws for Stereotype & Vague Allegations 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE

FIR/ORDER) NO. 22949 of 2015

With

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13234 of 2015

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

SUNILBHAI RAMSHANKER RATHOD & 2….Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:

NANAVATI & CO., ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 3
MAYANK K TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KK TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MRS. PRITI J JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

 

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 10/03/2017

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

 

1 Since the issues raised in both the captioned applications are the same   and   the   challenge   is   also   to   the   selfsame   proceedings   of   the criminal case, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2 By   these   two   applications   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused persons seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1538 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294B, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.  3 It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.2 herein got married to the applicant No.1, namely, Sunil Ramshanker Rathod on 7th  February 2015 at Madhya Pradesh. After marriage, the respondent   No.2   started   residing   at   her   matrimonial   home   in Ahmedabad along with her father­in­law and mother­in­law, who are the applicants Nos.2 and 3. The applicant of the connected application is a married   sister­in­law   of   the  respondent   No.2.   It  appears  that  within eleven moths from the date of marriage, matrimonial problems cropped up. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 thought fit to register the F.I.R. for the offence of cruelty.

3 It also appears from the materials on record that the husband realised that the respondent No.2 was suffering from Epilepsy. She had many other problems. According to the applicants, she was unable to adjust herself at the matrimonial home. Much before the registration of the F.I.R. by the wife, the husband issued a Notice dated 5th  January 2015, which is on record, and insisted that the marriage be dissolved. It is   the   case   of   the   applicants   that   parents   of   the   respondent   No.2 concealed the ailment  of their daughter.

4 As usual, no sooner something goes wrong at the matrimonial home, the allegations are levelled as regards the demand of money and mental cruelty.

5 Having gone through the materials on record and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the criminal   proceedings   initiated   by   the   respondent   No.2   against   the applicants   herein   is   nothing,   but   an   abuse   of   the   process   of   law. Stereotype allegations have been levelled, which I get rid of in almost each and every F.I.R. of the similar nature.

6 In   such   circumstances   referred   to   above,   both   the   applications   are allowed. The further proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1538 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Ahmedabad are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute in both the applications. Direct service is permitted

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Leave a Comment

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