IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 22949 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13234 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
SUNILBHAI RAMSHANKER RATHOD & 2….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
Appearance:
NANAVATI & CO., ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 3
MAYANK K TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KK TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MRS. PRITI J JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 10/03/2017
ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
1 Since the issues raised in both the captioned applications are the same and the challenge is also to the selfsame proceedings of the criminal case, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2 By these two applications 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 proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1538 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 294B, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 It appears from the materials on record that the respondent No.2 herein got married to the applicant No.1, namely, Sunil Ramshanker Rathod on 7th February 2015 at Madhya Pradesh. After marriage, the respondent No.2 started residing at her matrimonial home in Ahmedabad along with her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw, who are the applicants Nos.2 and 3. The applicant of the connected application is a married sisterinlaw of the respondent No.2. It appears that within eleven moths from the date of marriage, matrimonial problems cropped up. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 thought fit to register the F.I.R. for the offence of cruelty.
3 It also appears from the materials on record that the husband realised that the respondent No.2 was suffering from Epilepsy. She had many other problems. According to the applicants, she was unable to adjust herself at the matrimonial home. Much before the registration of the F.I.R. by the wife, the husband issued a Notice dated 5th January 2015, which is on record, and insisted that the marriage be dissolved. It is the case of the applicants that parents of the respondent No.2 concealed the ailment of their daughter.
4 As usual, no sooner something goes wrong at the matrimonial home, the allegations are levelled as regards the demand of money and mental cruelty.
5 Having gone through the materials on record and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 against the applicants herein is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. Stereotype allegations have been levelled, which I get rid of in almost each and every F.I.R. of the similar nature.
6 In such circumstances referred to above, both the applications are allowed. The further proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1538 of 2015 pending in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Ahmedabad are hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute in both the applications. Direct service is permitted
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
