Kalpeshsingh @ Lalu … vs State Of Gujarat & on 13 December, 2017

R/CR.MA/17336/2015 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17336 of 2015

KALPESHSINGH @ LALU RAMSEVAKSINGH BHADAURIYA
5….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR MB RANA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 6
MR RAJESH M CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.D.M.DEVNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 13/12/2017

ORAL ORDER

[1] At the outset, this application is not pressed so far as
the applicant No.1, namely, Kalpeshsingh @ Lalu Ramsevaksingh
Bhadauriya (husband) is concerned. The same is disposed of
accordingly.

[2] I am now left to consider the case of the applicant Nos.
2 to 6.

[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 C.R.No. I-65 of 2015 registered with the
Ramol Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 506(1) read with
section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:12:44 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17336/2015 ORDER

[4] It appears from the materials on record that the
respondent No.2 got married with the applicant No.1 on

02.12.2014. Soon after marriage, matrimonial disputes cropped
up between the husband and wife, which ultimately, led to the
filing of the present FIR. In the FIR by and large allegations of
harassment and cruelty have been levelled against the husband.
However, as usual in a dispute between the husband and wife, the
other family members of the husband have also been implicated.

[5] The applicant No.2 is the father-in-law, the applicant
No.3 is the mother-in-law, the applicant No.4 is the brother-in-law,
the applicant No.5 is the sister-in-law and the applicant No.6 is the
distinct relative of the respondent No.2.

[6] Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute, I
thought fit to make an attempt to see that an amicable settlement
is arrived at between the husband and wife. In such circumstances
on 30.11.2017, the following order was passed:

“The applicant no.1 viz.Kalpeshsingh @ Lalu
Ramsevaksingh Bhadauriya is directed to remain
personally present before this Court on 07/12/2017.
The respondent no.2 shall also remain present
before this Court on 07/12/2017. The learned
counsel appearing for both the respective parties
shall communicate about this order to their clients.
Post this matter on 07/12/2017 on top of the
board.”

[7] The applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 remained

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:12:44 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17336/2015 ORDER

present before me. I inquired with them as regards their
differences with each other. The respondent No.2 made herself
very clear that she would like to reconcile. However, I found the
attitude of the husband very adamant. The wife made a request
that the husband should come at her parental home and take her
along with him to the matrimonial home. The husband very
bluntly replied that he would not go to the house of his-in-laws and
bring his wife to her matrimonial home. From the attitude of the
husband, I could make it out that the reconciliation is not possible
or rather is not advisable keeping in mind the safety and security
of the respondent No.2.

[8] Having regard to the nature of the allegations, I am of
the view that the applicant Nos.2 to 6 should not be prosecuted.

[9] In such circumstances, referred to above, this
application is allowed so far as the applicant Nos.2 to 6 are
concerned. The First Information Report being C.R.No. I-65 of 2015
registered with the Ramol Police Station, District: Ahmedabad for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 506(1)
read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and
7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed so far as the
applicant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned. All the consequential
proceedings pursuant thereto shall also stand terminated qua the
applicant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned . Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent qua the applicant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned.
Direct service is permitted. The investigation shall now proceed
further in accordance with law so far as the applicant No.1 –
husband is concerned.

[10] I take notice of the fact that this petition was admitted

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:12:44 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/17336/2015 ORDER

and ad-interim order was also grated, as the same is being
vacated so far as the applicant No.1 is concerned. He apprehends
arrest. In such circumstances, I grant interim protection of two
weeks’ to the applicant – husband.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

dharmendra

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Wed Dec 13 23:12:44 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

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