4 Whether This Case Involves A … vs State Of Gujarat & on 3 November, 2017

R/CR.MA/14449/2015 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14449 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 ?

BALUBHAI HIRJIBHAI KACHADIYA ( PATEL) 2….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR. BHADRISH S RAJU, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. MOXA THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 03/11/2017

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Nov 03 23:43:04 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/14449/2015 JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The respondent No.2, although served with the notice
issued by this Court, has chosen not to remain present before
this Court either in person or through an advocate and oppose
this application.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, the learned
APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent No.1-State.

3. By this application under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke the
inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first
information report being I-C.R. No.61 of 2015 registered with
the Rander Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable
under sections 498A, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and sections 3,5 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the applicant
No.1 is the father-in-law, the applicant No.2 is the mother-in-
law and the applicant No.3 is the brother-in-law. It appears
that the applicants Nos.1 and 3 are the doctors by profession.
The respondent No.2 got married to one Amitkumar Balubhai
Patel on 20th May, 2001. The respondent No.2 appears to be a
qualified lady. She is serving as a professor in the Nav Gujarat
College at Ahmedabad. It appears from the materials on record
that the matrimonial life of the respondent No.2 got disturbed.
I have noticed that substantially the allegations of the alleged
cruelty are against the husband. The allegations of forgery are
also against the husband. What is alleged against the

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Nov 03 23:43:04 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/14449/2015 JUDGMENT

applicant No.1, being the father-in-law, is that he used to take
away the salary drawn by the respondent No.2 at the end of
the month. However, there seems to be some discrepancy in
this regard because on one hand the respondent No.2 stated
that the father-in-law used to take away the salary, whereas on
the other hand, she stated that her husband used to beat her
since she used to part with her salary with her father-in-law.

5. Be that as it may, in my view, no case is made out so far
as the three applicants herein are concerned.

6. In the result, this application succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The first information report being C.R. No.I-61 of 2015
registered with the Rander Police Station, Surat is hereby
quashed so far as the applicants are concerned. The
investigation, if not yet completed, shall be completed at the
earliest so far as the husband is concerned and the husband
should be put to trial in accordance with law. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Vahid

Page 3 of 3

HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Nov 03 23:43:04 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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