MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

498A Quash against Aged In-laws for Vague Allegations & Time Limitation



STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

MR SR YADAV, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 2
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS URMILA N DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1


Date : 13/10/2017


1. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of CR­I No.162/2013 dated 30.5.2013 filed by respondent no.2 herein before the Fatehgunj police station, Vadodara.

2. Brief facts are as under. The petitioners are the aged parents of Ketanbhai Jasubhai Chauhan. The complainant Amiben is wife of Ketanbhai Chauhan. It appears that Ketanbhai and Amiben had an inter­religious love marriage on 1.5.2006. Out of the marriage, a girl child is born to the couple after which due to matrimonial disputes, the two have separated. In the FIR it is alleged that after the marriage the complainant started residing with her husband and his parents. After about nine months from the marriage, the parents of the husband started demanding dowry and harassing the complainant physically and mentally alleging that she had not brought sufficient amount of dowry from her parents. She was also driven out of the house on couple of occasions. However, she did not lodge any formal complaint about the same. About a year and half before filing of the FIR, she fell sick. She was driven out from her matrimonial home with her daughter. She had to take shelter in her parents’ house. She tried to come back but she was again driven out. On 28.5.2013, in the evening hours, she had gone out for work where she met her husband who picked up a quarrel and also beat her up and damaged her mobile phone.

3. This in the nutshell are the allegations against the three accused. It can thus be seen that the allegations against the present petitioners who are the parents of the husband of the complainant are rather vague and general. As per the complainant herself she has been residing separately from the husband and in­laws since about one and half years before the complaint. The recent incident of 28.5.2013 where allegedly she was beaten up by husband involves only the husband and not the present petitioners. Even the allegations of harassment by the present petitioners pertain to period of about nine months after the date of marriage which took place in the year 2006. Further, I have also noted the contents of the application filed by the complainant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which she has alleged that after her marriage which took place on 1.5.2006, she and her husband were driven out of the  house by the husband’s parents on 14.1.2007. Since then they were residing separately in rented premises. These allegations are in stark contrast to the averments of the complaint where the fact that husband and wife started residing separately from the in­laws since January 2007 has not been revealed. In case of Arneshkumar v. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273, the Supreme Court has cautioned against the misuse and abuse of the proceedings against in­laws and distant relatives of the husband by the wife involving offences under section 498­A of the IPC and other related offences.

4. Looked from any angle, the present FIR cannot be allowed to be proceeded against the petitioners. To reiterate the allegations in the complaint are vague and general against them. The allegations of harassment are stale. Offence under section 498­A concedes period of limitation. Further the averments made in the application filed by the complainant under the Domestic Violence Act would show that husband and wife started residing separately from the petitioners since 14.1.2007 and lastly, the recent incident of the husband quarelling with wife does not involve the present petitioners.

5. On such grounds impugned complaint being CR­I No.162/2013 dated 30.5.2013 lodged before the Fatehgunj police station, Vadodara is quashed qua the petitioners alone.

6. Petition is disposed of.

Direct service is permitted.

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 MyNation KnowledgeBase
eXTReMe Tracker