Abbasi Fakhruddin Ghadiali & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 7 December, 2017

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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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