SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

4 Whether This Case Involves A … vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 5 May, 2017

R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12520 of 2010

With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12787 of 2010

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?

JABARCHAND BOHRA 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 2….Respondent(s)

Appearance:

MR MAHENDRA U VORA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 4
MR G R MANAV, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR SANJAY PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. HIMANSHU PATEL, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 – 3

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Page 1 of 12

HC-NIC Page 1 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 05 /05/2017
CAV JUDGMENT

1 Both   these   applications   invoking   Section   482   of 

the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed against 

the   complaint   lodged   by   Daxaben­respondent   No.3   in 

both   these   applications.   Respondent   No.3­Daxaben 

Ravindrabhai Shrimadi is the wife of one Ravindrabhai 

Shrimadi, whom she married on 15.05.2002.

2 Criminal   Miscellaneous   Application   No.   12520   of 

2010 has been filed by the brother­in­law, father­in­

law   and   the   mother­in­law   of   Daxaben,   whereas, 

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12787 of 2010 

has   been   filed   by   the   Sisters­in­law   –   Saarika   and 

Shraddhaben   and   their   husbands   Ashwinkumar   and 

Vijaykumar   respectively.   Daxaben­the   complainant, 

apart  from   filing  a   complaint  under  Section   498­   A, 

Section   323,   506(2)   read   with   Section   114   of   the 

Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the 

Dowry Act against the husband has roped in the other 

family members in such complaint. These applications, 

therefore,   have   been   filed   by   the   family   members 

except the husband. 

Page 2 of 12

HC-NIC Page 2 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

3 The   complainant­Daxaben,   has   filed   C.R   No.I­

42/2010 with the Mahila Police Station at Ahmedabad on 

29.07.2010. The complaint is annexed with the memo of 

the   application,   when   read   unfolds   the   following 

story:

3.1 According to the complainant­Daxaben, she is 

staying at Ahmedabad. Out of the wedlock with 

husband Ravindra, she has a son who is one and 

a   half   year   old   and   a   daughter   Nandini   aged 

about   seven   years.   According   to   the 

complainant, she married Ravindra and after the 

marriage, she shifted to the matrimonial home 

at   Mount   Abu.   Ravindra’s   family   was   a   joint 

family.   The   present   applicants   of   both   these 

applications were residing together.

3.2 According to the complainant, right from the 

inception   after   marriage,   she   was   being 

harassed   by   the   family.   All   of   them   together 

would taunt her, make her do daily chores like 

cleaning of toilet and would beat her etc,. The 

complainant further indicated in her complaint 

that   the   father­in­law   and   the   mother­in­law 

Page 3 of 12

HC-NIC Page 3 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

had   insisted   that   the   ornaments   that   she   was 

wearing   and   which   she   had   brought   on   her 

marriage, be given to them as it was unsafe for 

the  wife  to  wear   such  ornaments   in  a  tourist 

place like Abu.

3.3 On repeated demand for money, her mother was 

compelled to part with large sums of money, buy 

a   flat   at   Ahmedabad   out   of   such   funds.   The 

husband shifted to Ahmedabad with his brother 

and wife­ accused Nos. 4 and 5, applicants of 

Criminal   Miscellaneous   Application   No.   12787 

and   applicants   Nos.   1   and   4   of   Criminal 

Miscellaneous   Application   No.   12787.   Repeated 

attempts   were   made   to   taunt   her   under   the 

pretext that they would get her husband married 

to her Bhabhi’s sister. In the complaint, she 

narrates   an   episode   which   occurred   in   March 

2010. When she was at Abu and her daughter was 

down   with   fever   and   son   with   Pneumonia, 

repeated prayers for the husband to come over 

to Abu failed. In order to get better medical 

treatment, when she went with her children to 

Ahmedabad   the   in­laws   and   the   husband   left 

Page 4 of 12

HC-NIC Page 4 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

Ahmedabad   and   it   was   her   neighgbours   and 

acquaintances   in   Ahmedabad   who   gave   her   the 

necessary   help   that   her   children   would   get 

appropriate   treatment.   This   in   short   is   the 

narrative of the complainant as stated in her 

complaint   and   apart   from   the   other   sections 

invoked Section 498­A against her in­laws and 

other   relatives.   The   complaint   was   filed   on 

29.07.2010.

4 On   record   is   also   an   objection   filed   under 

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the husband­

Ravindra Shrimadi before the appropriate Civil Court 

at   Abu   filed   on   12.07.2010,   seeking   separation   from 

his   wife   alleging   that   marriage   has   irretrievably 

broken down, and therefore, they need to separate by 

an appropriate decree of separation be passed. It may, 

however, be added that such objection is not relevant 

for the purpose of deciding the issue in the present 

case.

5 Mr Mahendra Vora, learned advocate appearing for 

the   applicants   in   both   these   applications   has 

Page 5 of 12

HC-NIC Page 5 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

contended that on bare reading of the complaint, it is 

evident that it cannot be said that the relatives of 

the husband are in any manner involved so as to come 

within the net of Section 498­A of the IPC. He further 

contended that the complaint does not disclose that an 

offence   of   the   nature   under   Section   498­A   has   been 

made   out.   Mr   Mahendra   Vora,   in   support   of   his 

contention   that   the   relatives   have   been   roped   in 

without any prima facie cause against them, as relied 

on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of 

Bhaskarlal Sharma and another vs. Monica  reported in 

(2009) 10 SCC 604.  He has also relied on a decision 

reported in  (2012)   10   SCC   741  in the case of  Geeta  

Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and  

Another.  Mr Vora has further relied on a decision in 

a case of Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala and  

another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 466 to contend that 

once ingredients of Section 498 are not been made out, 

this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 

of the Cr.P.C quash such a complaint and prevent the 

abuse of process of law.

6 Mr. Sanjay Prajapati on the other hand appearing 

Page 6 of 12

HC-NIC Page 6 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

for   Daxaben­the   wife­the   original   complainant   has 

contended that, reading of the FIR makes it apparent 

that wife has been treated cruelly at the hands of her 

in­laws. Sufficient material is evident on reading the 

complaint   to   suggest   that   she   has   been   subject   to 

cruelty. Harassment of the wife at the hands of the 

in­laws   would   certainly   be   a   case,   wherein,   Section 

498­   A   has   rightly   been   invoked   and   the   complaint, 

therefore, need not be quashed. He further contended 

that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C should not be invoked 

and the complaint be quashed when investigation into 

the matter still needs to be done.

7 Mr   Himanshu   Patel,   learned   APP   contended   that, 

Section     498­A has rightly been invoked by the wife 

that   when   the   complaint   is   read   admittedly   the 

averments indicates that all of them were residing in 

a joint family at Mount Abu, and therefore, it is not 

a case where the family members have been just roped 

in. Mr Patel has categorically drawn my attention to 

the   contents   in   the   FIR   and   particularly   to   the 

averments   which   read  to  the   effect   that   the   accused 

Nos. 2 to 5 were continuously pressurizing the wife to 

Page 7 of 12

HC-NIC Page 7 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

return to her parental home, that she should agree to 

a   separation.   That,   the   accused   Nos.   4   and   5   the 

brother­in­law and his wife particularly wife of the 

brother­in­law had said that she wanted her sister to 

marry  the   husband.   Such  averments   would   lead  one   to 

the   conclusion   that   Section   498­A   has   been   rightly 

invoked.

8 Having given anxious consideration to the case on 

hand   and  having   read  the   complaint   in   its  entirety, 

what comes out from reading the complaint is that the 

complainant   has   made   out   and   levelled   allegations 

about the harassment, taunting and incidents where the 

in­laws have asked her to bring the dowry. The First 

Information   Report   when   carefully   perused,   does 

indicate   levelling   of   such   allegations,   however, 

merely   allegations   of   harassment   qua   the   in­laws   do 

not state that they used to taunt and harass without 

giving   specific   opportunities   except   that   of   the 

accused No.5 impressing upon the complainant that she 

would   want   her   sister   to   marry   the   husband,   do   not 

give such specific opportunities which meet the test 

of adequacy of law.

Page 8 of 12

HC-NIC Page 8 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

9 It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce 

Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498­A 

reads thus:

” 498A.  Husband   or   relative   of   husband   of   a

woman subjecting her to cruelty.­ Whoever, being

the husband or the relative of the husband of a

woman, subjects such woman  to   cruelty   shall   be

punished   with   imprisonment   for   a   term   which

may   extend   to   three   years   and   shall   also   be

liable to fine. 

Explanation­   For   the   purpose   of   this  

section,  “cruelty” means­

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature 

as is  likely to drive the woman tocommit   suicide 

or to cause  grave injury or danger   to   life,   limb 

or health  (whether  mental  or   physical)   of   the 

woman; or 

(b) harassment   of   the   woman   where   such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or any

person related to her to meet any unlawful demand 

for any property or valuable security or is   on 

account of failure by her or any person related   to 

her to meet such demand.”

Page 9 of 12

HC-NIC Page 9 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

10 In the case of Bhaskarlal Sharma and another vs.  

Monica   (Supra)  the   Supreme   Court   treated   they 

complaint filed by the wife under Section 498­A of the 

Indian   Penal   Code.   The   explanation   to   Section   498­A 

which   defines   cruelty   would   amount   a   wilful   conduct 

which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the 

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or 

danger   to   life,   limb   or   health   of   the   woman,   or 

harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with 

a view to exercising her to meet any unlawful demand.

11 In order that an offence under Section 498­A is 

proved,   the   complainant   must   make   an   allegation   of 

harassment to the extent, so as to, coerce her to meet 

any unlawful demand of dowry or any wilful conduct on 

the part of the accused of such a nature as is likely 

to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave 

injury or danger to life, limb or health.

12 On reading the First Information Report, in the 

facts   of   the   case,   a   bare   reading   of   the   complaint 

makes it evident that, though, the in­laws­the present 

applicants have been roped in, nothing appears to have 

Page 10 of 12

HC-NIC Page 10 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

been stated in the complaint so as to lead wife to the 

conclusion that their act has driven the wife­Daxaben­

the complainant to harass her to the extent as stated 

aforesaid.

13 Even in the case of  Geeta  Mehrotra   and   another  

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra) it has 

been   held   that,   when   the   First   Information   Report 

prima facie  does not disclose or there is not enough 

material   to   suggest   that   the   family   members   have 

brought forth a situation that cruelty is evident from 

their conduct, Section 498­A should not be invoked. 

14 From   a   bare   reading   of   the   complaint,   what   is 

seen is that, the whole conduct of the complainant is 

eventually to rope in all the members of the family 

without assigning any specific role to each member of 

such family and to show as to how their conduct has 

resulted in having them committed cruelty.

15 Having   found   that   the   basic   averments   in   the 

complaint so filed are missing, having relied on the 

judgments referred to by the learned advocate for the 

Page 11 of 12

HC-NIC Page 11 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/12520/2010 CAV JUDGMENT

applicant, particularly, in those referred in the case 

of  Geeta Mehrotra and Bhaskarlal Sharma,  in exercise 

of my extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of 

the   Cr.P.C,   I   deem   it   fit   to   quash   the   FIR   in 

question. 

16 For the foregoing reasons, both the applications 

are hereby allowed and the FIR being C.R No.I­42/2010 

registered with the Mahila Police Station at Ahmedabad 

on   29.07.2010,   against   the   present   applicants   is 

hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to 

the above extent.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J.)
Bimal

Page 12 of 12

HC-NIC Page 12 of 12 Created On Sat May 06 03:24:14 IST 2017

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation