IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4899 of 2015
HARESH LALSINGH GADHAVI & 3….Applicant(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MR.SANAT B PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI for HL PATEL ADVOCATES, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 24/11/2015
RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Patel, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1. Ms.Pancholi, the learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.2.
By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused nos.2, 3 and 4 seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the FIR bearing II-CR No.12 of 2015 lodged with the Petlad (Rural) Police Station, District Anand, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case of the prosecution is that the applicants herein treated the first informant cruelly and thereby they have committed an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
On 8th December 2009, the marriage of the first informant was solemnized with the applicant no.1. I may clarify at this stage that this application has not been pressed so far as the applicant no.1 – husband is concerned.
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 married sister-in-law. Within thirty days from the date of the marriage, the husband left for London. While the husband was at London, the first informant stayed back at her matrimonial home. It also appears that some time in the year 2010, the first informant joined her husband at London and stayed there for two years. Since she was taken ill, she returned to India in May 2012. It is her case that she waited for her in-laws to take her back to her matrimonial home but none turned up. It is her case that although she was ill, yet none came to inquire about her.
It has been vehemently submitted by Ms.Pancholi, the learned counsel appearing for the first informant that the mother-in-law used to treat the first informant cruelly by hurling abuses. There were constant altercations with regard to the household work.
It appears that after almost a period of three years the first informant thought fit to lodge the FIR. Rude and uncultured behaviour as well as perfunctory abuses are mundane matters and would not attract the rigors of Section 498A of the IPC. There has to be something more to attract Section 498A of the IPC. Even if I accept the entire case of the prosecution, there is nothing against the father-in-law and the married sister-in-law. Whatever little has been alleged is against the mother-in-law, and that too, hurling of abuses, using of perfunctory words, etc. They may be morally guilty of not treating the daughter-in-law with respect in an Indian society, but such moral acts fall short of an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
In view of the above, this application is allowed. The First Information Report bearing No.II-CR No.12 of 2015 lodged with the Petlad (Rural) Police Station, District Anand, is hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the father-in-law, mother-in- law and sister-in-law are concerned. The case shall proceed further in accordance with law so far as the husband is concerned. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.