Darshankumar Jayantibhai Tank & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 September, 2017

R/CR.MA/17462/2011 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17462 of 2011

DARSHANKUMAR JAYANTIBHAI TANK 2….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAT G POPAT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 2 – 3
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MADANSINGH O BAROD, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

Date : 22/09/2017

ORAL ORDER

1. This is an application for quashing of FIR being
II-CR.No.56 of 2011 registered with Mahila Police Station,
District, Junagadh. The FIR is filed for offences under
Sections 498-A, 504, 506(2), 114 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.

2. Originally, the application was filed for all the
three accused. However by order dated 29.12.2011, this
Court has recorded that qua applicant No.1 (husband) the
petition is not pressed, qua the applicants No.2 and 3,
the matter is admitted and interim relief staying the
investigation was granted.

Page 1 of 5

HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:13:25 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17462/2011 ORDER

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that

considering the allegations made in the FIR, there is no
role attributed to the applicants. The applicants, who
are father-in-law and mother-in-law, were residing in the
joint family, only for a temporary period of two months.
They are now permanently residing abroad.

3.1 Learned advocate for the applicants took this Court
to the allegations made in the FIR and submitted that all
the allegations are directed towards the accused No.1
(husband). Insofar as the present applicants are
concerned, the only allegation surfacing is that both the
applicants have sided the husband.

3.2 It is further submitted that all the allegations
being general in nature, further prosecution of the
applicants would be an abuse of process of law.

3.3 Learned advocate for the applicants drew attention to
the travelling documents of the applicants, which indicate
that the applicants were in India for the period from
15.09.2009 to 20.11.2009. The marriage had taken place on
15.02.2008, and thereafter, on account of the differences
between husband wife in the year 2009, the respondent
No.2 had separated and filed application for maintenance
with JMFC, Upleta in the year 2009 and in the year 2011,
the present FIR is registered.

3.4. It is submitted that admittedly, since 2009, the
respondent No.2 is residing separately and therefore, also

Page 2 of 5

HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:13:25 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17462/2011 ORDER

the complaint qua the present applicants deserves
consideration.

3.5. Learned advocate for the applicants relied upon
judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.
10161 of 2014 dated 13.11.2014, he drew attention of this
Court to Paragraph Nos. 25 and 26.

4. As against this, learned advocate for the respondent
No.2 drew attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondent No.2. He drew attention of this Court to
Para No. 6 and submitted that insofar as the father-in-law
is concerned, he had traveled to USA in the year 2009.
However, at the time of incident, as per the travel
documents, the mother-in-law was present in India.

5. Considering the rival submissions for the parties and
having gone through the documents on record, this Court is
of the view that from the perusal of the FIR, the only
allegations which are made against the applicants are
siding with the husband, when the husband used to harass
the respondent No.2.

6. The travel documents on record indicate that the
applicants are resident of a Foreign Country and were
temporarily residing with the couple, and thereafter, from
2009 onwards, they are residing abroad and, therefore, the
registration of FIR in the year 2011, would not attribute
any act on the part of the applicants so as to constitute
an offence of cruelty towards the respondent No.2.

Page 3 of 5

HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:13:25 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17462/2011 ORDER

7. This Court in judgment dated 13.11.2014 in Criminal

Misc. Application No. 10161 of 2014 dated 13.11.2014, in
paragraphs No.25 and 26 held as under:-

“25. Thus, it could be seen from the above that the
apex Court has noticed the tendency of the married
women roping in all the relatives of her husband in
such complaints only with a view to harass all of
them, though they may not be even remotely involved
in the offence alleged.

26. Once the FIR is lodged under Sections
498A/406/323 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, whether there are vague,
unspecific or exaggerated allegations or there is no
evidence of any physical or mental harm or injury
inflicted upon woman that is likely to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health, it comes as
an easy tool in the hands of Police and agencies like
Crime Against Women Cell to hound them with the
threat of arrest making them run helter skelter and
force them to hide at their friends or relatives
houses till they get anticipatory bail as the offence
has been made cognizable and non-bailable. Thousands
of such complaints and cases are pending and are
being lodged day in and day out. There is a growing
tendency to come out with inflated and exaggerated
allegations roping in each and every relation of the
husband and if one of them happens to be of higher
status or of a vulnerable standing, he or she becomes
an easy prey for better bargaining and blackmailing.”

8. The fact that the separation between the respondent
No.2 and accused No.1-husband is now on record, and which
is from the year 2009 and hence also, the complaint which
is filed belatedly, insofar as the applicants are
concerned, if permitted to proceed further, would amount
to abuse of process of law and hence, the FIR being
II-CR.No.56 of 2011 registered with Mahila Police Station,
District, Junagadh. deserves to be quashed and is hereby

Page 4 of 5

HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:13:25 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17462/2011 ORDER

quashed. The application is allowed. Rule is made
absolute.

This order will not preclude the investigation or
trial insofar as the accused No.1 is concerned.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J.)
Alok

Page 5 of 5

HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Mon Oct 02 04:13:25 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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