IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3394 of 2015

VALIBEN ALIAS VIDYABEN W/O. PETHABHAI VINZUDA….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
HCLS COMMITTEE, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NILESH I JANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 15/12/2016
ORAL ORDER

1. The respondent no.2-original first informant although served with the notice issued by this Court has chosen not to remain present before this Court and oppose this application
either in person or through an advocate.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Pathak, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1-State of Gujarat.

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the applicant-original accused no.2 seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.24 of 2015 pending in the court of learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.3, Ahmedabad, arising from the First Information Report bearing I C.R. No.229/2014 lodged with the Shaher kotda Police Station, Ahmedabad City, DistrictAhmedabad, for the offence punishable under Section 498(3),323, 294(B), 506(1) read with 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. It appears from the materials on record that the first informant got married with the son of the applicant herein on 23.02.2014.According to her, within three days from the date of marriage, the husband of the first informant and the present applicant, who is the mother-in-law, started harassing her. It is alleged that there was a demand for dowry. Substantially, the allegations are only against the husband within 10 days from the date of marriage. The first informant left the matrimonial home. It appears that eight months thereafter she filed an FIR.

5. Even if I accept the entire case of the the first informant as true, in my view, no case worth the name of the applicant is made out. In the result, this application is allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No.24 of 2015 pending in the court of learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.3, Ahmedabad are hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the applicant is concerned.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)