4 Whether This Case Involves A … vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 November, 2017

R/CR.MA/15157/2015 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15157 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 ?

HUSENMIYA JULFIKARALI @ SHERALI SAIYAD 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR TEJAS M BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. DEVNANI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 22/11/2017

ORAL JUDGMENT

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu Nov 23 00:08:31 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/15157/2015 JUDGMENT

1. By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 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.311 of 2015 pending in
the court of the learned JMFC, Vadali arising from the first
information report being C.R. No.I-20 of 2015 lodged with the
Vadali Police Station for the offence punishable under sections
498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and
sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. On 20th January, 2016, the following order was passed;

“Despite the service of notice upon the respondent no.2,
she has chosen not to remain present either in person or
through an advocate and oppose this application.

Rule returnable on 17.06.2016. Mr. Patel, the learned
APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of
the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 be served
directly through the Investigating Officer of the
concerned Police Station.

The interim-relief earlier granted to continue till final
disposal of this application. Direct service is permitted.”

3. Today also when the matter is taken up for final hearing,
the respondent No.2-original first informant, has not thought fit
to appear before this Court either in person or through an
advocate and oppose this application.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the
respondent No.2 got married with the applicant No.1 about 13
months before the date of the registration of the first
information report. It is alleged in the first information report
that soon after the marriage, matrimonial problems arose and

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu Nov 23 00:08:31 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/15157/2015 JUDGMENT

the applicants started treating the first informant with cruelty.

5. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, I find them
to be very vague and general. This is one another case, in
which, very stereotype allegations are levelled by the wife of
harassment at the end of the husband and other family
members of the husband. In my view, the allegations do not
constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 498(A) of the
IPC.

6. In the result, this application succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No.311 of 2015
pending in the court of the learned JMFC, Vadali arising from
the first information report being C.R. No.I-20 of 2015 lodged
with the Vadali Police Station are hereby quashed. 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 Thu Nov 23 00:08:31 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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