R/CR.MA/6692/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 6692 of 2017
ABBASI FAKHRUDDIN GHADIALI 2….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)
Appearance:
MR EE SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 3
MR ASHISH M DAGLI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 07/12/2017
ORAL ORDER
1 By this application 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
First Information Report being II – C.R. No.249 of 2015 registered before
the Dahegam Town Police Station, District: Dahod for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506(2) and 323 read with 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
2 I take notice of the fact that the applicant No.1 is the fatherin
law, the applicant No.2 is the motherinlaw and the applicant No.3 is
the married sisterinlaw of the respondent No.2 – original first
informant. The respondent No.2 got married with Shabbirbhai Abbasbhai
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Dec 08 00:17:42 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/6692/2017 ORDER
Ghadiali on 30th June 2011 by performing Nikah at Pune. On 7th
November 2011, the Nikah was registered at Pune. In December, 2011,
the last part of the marriage ceremony was performed at Dahod.
Between December 2011 and January 2012, the respondent No.2 stayed
at Dahod. On 7th January 2012, the respondent No.2 left with her
husband for the U.S. In January 2014, the parents of the respondent
No.2 visited the U.S. All of a sudden, something went wrong and on 1 st
July 2015, a notice was issued through a lawyer as regards the
allegations of harassment at the end of the applicants. A reply was given
by the applicants through their advocate to the notice issued by the
respondent No.2. It further appears from the materials on record that
the marriage was dissolved in accordance with the custom prevailing in
the community. The Divorce Certificate is annexed at page: 7 of the
paper book. It also appears that Rs.3,00,000/ was fixed to be paid to
the wife for her maintenance and the Iddat amount was fixed at
Rs.21,786/. It appears that over and above the same, gold worth 7000
Dollars, ornaments worth 7000 Dollars and about Rs.6 to 10 Lac in
Indian currency was decided to be paid to the newly born baby.
3 Mr. Dagli, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2
submitted that none of the above was accepted as the wife was not
inclined to dissolve the marriage.
4 Having regard to the facts narrated above, I do not find any case
against the applicants herein i.e. the fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and
the sisterinlaw respectively. The sisterinlaw is a married lady and
settled in Chennai. However, as usual, in a dispute between husband
and wife, the wife has implicated other members also of the husband’s
family. I have no hesitation in quashing the F.I.R. so far as applicants
herein are concerned.
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Dec 08 00:17:42 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/6692/2017 ORDER
5 So far as the husband is concerned, he is in the U.S. It seems that
the case is one of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Although the
wife wants to continue with the marriage, yet in the wake of the
developments, which have taken place over a period of time, I do not see
any scope of reconciliation.
6 I also take notice of the fact that there is one order of maintenance
passed by the Court below. Rs.10,000/ per month has been awarded to
be paid to the wife and Rs.5,000/ per month to be paid to the child.
According to Mr. Dagli, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2, this amount is not being paid by the husband.
7 I am of the view that the husband should come down to India and
settle the matter once and for all.
8 In the result, this application is allowed. The First Information
Report being II – C.R. No.249 of 2015 registered before the Dahegam
Town Police Station, District: Dahod is quashed so far as the applicants
herein are concerned. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
9 At this stage, Mr. Saiyed, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicants submitted that he would persuade the husband to settle the
matter in the interest of the minor child. Mr. Saiyed, the learned counsel
should make all possible efforts to see that an amicable settlement is
arrived at between the husband and wife.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
chandresh
Page 3 of 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Dec 08 00:17:42 IST 2017
