R/CR.MA/22949/2015 JUDGMENT 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 ==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or
any order made thereunder ?
SUNILBHAI RAMSHANKER RATHOD 2….Applicant(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)
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
Page 1 of 3
HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sat Mar 11 00:27:03 IST 2017
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
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sat Mar 11 00:27:03 IST 2017
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
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.
Page 3 of 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sat Mar 11 00:27:03 IST 2017