Sunday, Apr 28, 2024

24x7 Free Helpline For Men +91-888-2-498-498

Share
whatsapp

Court Name : Gujarat High Court

Law Point: Distant relatives aged 78 and 88 accused in 498a quashed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 9064 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 ?
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 ?
==========================================================
CHIRAG GIRISHBHAI MEHTA & 7….Applicant(s)
Versus
VILSUBEN CHIRAGBHAI MEHTA & 1….Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UMESH A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 2 – 8
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. PATHAK, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 11/01/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Although the respondent No.1-original first informant has
been served with the notice issued by this Court, yet she has
Page 1 of 6
HC-NIC Page 1 of
6
Created On Sat Feb 11 01:11:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT
chosen not to remain present either in person or through an
advocate and oppose this application.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Pathak, the learned APP,
waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondent No.2.
3. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants seek to invoke the
inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first
information report being II-C.R. No.7 of 2015 registered with
the Mahila Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offence punishable
under sections 498A, 504, 506(2), 323 read with section 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
4. On 25th June, 2015, the following order was passed;
“Mr.Umesh A. Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicant
states, upon instructions, that he does not press the
application qua applicant No.1-Chirag Girishbhai Mehta,
husband of respondent No.2-Complainant. He prays for
permission to withdraw the application qua applicant
No.1. He is permitted to do so. The application qua
applicant No.1 stands withdrawn. The application
survives only with respect to applicants Nos.2 to 8.
Heard the learned advocate for the applicant.
It is submitted that applicants Nos.4 and 5 reside
separately at Mumbai from applicants Nos.1 to 3 who are
husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent
No.2. Applicants Nos.6 to 8 reside at Bhavnagar.
However, all the family members have been roped in on
the basis of general allegations which do not constitute
the offence under Section-498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Issue Notice returnable on 22.07.2015.
Page 2 of 6
HC-NIC Page 2 of
6
Created On Sat Feb 11 01:11:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT
Ms.Chetna M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
waives service of notice for respondent No.2.
No coercive action be taken against applicants Nos.2 to
8, till then.”
5. Thus, it appears that this application was not pressed so
far as the applicant No.1, I.e. the husband is concerned. It
appears that since this Court declined to entertain this
application so far as the husband is concerned, the
investigation proceeded against him and charge-sheet was
filed, which culminated in the Criminal Case No.8072 of 2015
pending in the court of the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhavnagar. The husband was put to trial and,
ultimately, vide judgment and order dated 22nd December,
2016 passed by the Trial Court, he came to be acquitted of all
the offences. The copy of the judgment and order passed by
the Trial Court is placed on record. It appears that the learned
APP is not sure whether any acquittal appeal has been filed by
the State against the judgment and order of acquittal or any
appeal has been filed by the original first informant.
6. In such circumstances referred to above, I am now left
with to consider the case so far as the applicants
Nos.2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 are concerned.
7. The case of the first informant is as under;
7.1 The applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law, the applicant
No.3 is the father-in-law, the applicant No.4 is the brother of
the father-in-law, the applicant No.5 is the son of the brother of
the father-in-law, the applicant No.6 is the sister-in-law, the
applicant No.7 is the husband of the sister-in-law and the
applicant No.8 is the aunt of the husband of the first informant.
Page 3 of 6
HC-NIC Page 3 of
6
Created On Sat Feb 11 01:11:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT
7.2 In the first information report, it has been stated that the
first informant got married to Chiragbhai Girishbhai Mehta on
4
th December, 2007. As usual, it appears that soon after the
marriage, matrimonial disputes cropped up between the
husband and wife. The first informant has levelled general,
vague and sweeping allegations of harassment and demand of
dowry.
8. Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the
applicants would submit that in the wake of the acquittal of the
husband by the Trial Court, nothing survives in the matter. If
the allegations against the husband could not be established,
how is the wife going to establish the case against the other
applicants, who are none other than the distant and near
relatives of the husband.
9. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Trivedi
prays that there being merit in this application, the same be
allowed and the first information report be quashed.
10. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently
opposed by Ms. Pathak, the learned APP appearing for the
State.
11. The learned APP would submit that the plain reading of
the first information report, prima facie, discloses the
commission of cognizable offence. According to her, there are
allegations of harassment levelled by the wife against one and
all. She would submit that this Court may not embark upon an
inquiry whether the allegations are true or false or whether
they are reliable or not. She would further submit that the
Page 4 of 6
HC-NIC Page 4 of
6
Created On Sat Feb 11 01:11:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT
acquittal of the husband, by itself, is no ground to quash the
first information report so far as the other co-accused are
concerned.
12. She prays that there being no merit in this application,
the same be rejected.
13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having considered the materials on record, the
only question that falls for my consideration is whether the first
information report should be quashed so far as the applicants
are concerned.
14. In my view, this is one more matter, wherein the wife has
shown the tendency to implicate as many persons of the
husband’s family. It appears that she has spread none. The
applicant No.4 happens to be the brother of her father-inlaw,aged
88 years. The applicants Nos.6 and 7 are residing at
Bhavnagar. The applicant No.8 is a lady, aged 78 years and
happens to be a distant relative of the husband. The
allegations against these applicants are of instigation.
15. As stated above, the trial proceeded against the husband
and the prosecution failed. If that be so, putting the applicants
herein to trial will be nothing but travesty of justice.
16. In such circumstances referred to above, this application
succeeds and is hereby allowed. The first information report
being II-C.R. No.7 of 2015 registered with the Mahila Police
Station, Bhavnagar is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute
to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Page 5 of 6
HC-NIC Page 5 of
6
Created On Sat Feb 11 01:11:53 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/9064/2015 JUDGMENT
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
Vahid
Page 6 of 6
HC-NIC Page 6 of
6
Created On Sat Feb 11 01:11:53 IST 2017

Quick Links
Tags
FIR
EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
Dowry
False Case
HMA
406
CrPC 340
RTI
IPC 497
DP Act
RCR
Divorce
CrPC 340 - Perjury
CrPC 126
No relief to people who come to courts with unclean hands
Mutual Consent Divorce
No neighbor examined.
323
322
HMA 25
Child Custody
IPC 376
156(3)
CrPC 127
IPC 506
CrPC 313
HMA-24
IndianPenalCode
DV-Act
No Proper Source of funds of dowry.
CrPC 319
IPC 334
Stay by Appellate Court
Order 41 Rule 5 CPC
Electronic evidence
Police Custody
IPC 302
306
Wife earning
unclean hands
No maintenance to deserting wife
Quash
498a
NCRB
IPC 304
Car to husband
IPC 375
Dowry Misuse
Dowry Death
CrPC 41
Maintenance dismissed
CrPC 161
Cooling period
41a
IPC
CrPC 294
Judicial Custody
Quashing 498a
Passport
Section 376
IPC 323
Legal Terrorism
IPC 354
Diet Money
No Independent witness examined
Caveat
CrPC 468
IPC 406
clubbing all cases in single court
CrPC 128
prohibition
False affidavit
Bail
Passport
Vague Allegations
False Allegations
504
Maintenance

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law related blogs and websites. We, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, LawOctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc. Many of the judgements are also taken from the websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Copyright © 2019-20 SIF Chandigarh. All Rights Reserved