Dhiruben Pravinbhai Gadhvi vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 18208 Guj

     R/CR.MA/8105/2020                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 8105 of 2020


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

================================================================

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 ?

================================================================
                           DHIRUBEN PRAVINBHAI GADHVI
                                     Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PUNAM G GADHVI (3724) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MILAN R MARUTI (7338) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR NEEL P LAKHANI (10679) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PM LAKHANI (1326) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MRS R P LAKHANI (3811) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                    Date : 08/12/2021

                                    ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant, original accused No.2, has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being FIR

R/CR.MA/8105/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2021

No.11196001200008 registered with Mahila Police Station, Vadodara City under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.

2. The applicant herein is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2- original complainant. The respondent no.2 is working in Police Department and according to the averments made in the complaint, she was serving at the Office of Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Vadodara and from 01.03.2019, she was serving with the Office of the Commissioner of Police at Ahmedabad.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Punam Gadhvi for the applicant submitted that during holidays, the respondent No.2 used to come to her matrimonial house and stayed along with the joint family. The tenor of the allegations made in the impugned complaint reveals that there was trust deficit between the respondent-complainant and her husband. He submitted that the allegations made against the applicant are general in nature and that the issues are between the respondent-complainant and her husband and that the applicant has been arraigned as accused merely because she is the mother-in-law of respondent-complainant.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Gadhvi pointed out that the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant had filed a suit for eviction against the respondent-complainant being Civil Suit No.14 of 2020 before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad wherein, ad-interim injunction has been granted in favour of the father-in-law and the respondent-wife has been

R/CR.MA/8105/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2021

restrained from entering the matrimonial house during the presence of her in-laws. He submitted that as a counter-blast to the above suit, the impugned complaint came to be filed.

3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Gadhvi drew attention of the Court to the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.8106 of 2020 preferred by original accused No.3 in the impugned complaint under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2021 and the impugned complaint came to be quashed qua original accused No.3.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Neel Lakhani appearing for respondent No.2

- complainant referred to the affidavit filed by the complainant to submit that she was being harassed both physically and mentally by the applicant and her in-laws in furtherance of the demand for dowry. He stated that the husband of the respondent-complainant was having extra-marital affair, which, on being questioned by the respondent-complainant, was not liked by her husband and in-laws and which became the cause for initiation of cruelty on the respondent-complainant. He submitted that the applicant and her husband used to instigate their son against the respondent- complainant, which also was a factor behind the cruelty being meted out to the respondent-complainant. It was, therefore, prayed that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant.

5. Heard learned advocates on both the sides. The tenor of the complaint suggests that the main dispute is between the respondent- complainant and her husband and their relationship is marred with huge

R/CR.MA/8105/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2021

trust deficit. It appears from the record that the father-in-law of the respondent-complainant had filed a suit for eviction against the respondent-complainant, wherein interim injunction had been granted in favour of the plaintiff-father in law. Thus, the respondent-complainant has been residing separately and not at her matrimonial home, which is also evident from the averments made in the impugned complaint. The applicant herein is the mother-in-law of the respondent-complainant and insofar as her alleged role is concerned, no specific allegations of harassment / cruelty have been made against her in the impugned complaint.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2012 (10) SCC 741, observed as under:

"25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal

R/CR.MA/8105/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2021

accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over- implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.

28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed."

7. The Apex Court has held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 that the High Court can quash the FIR to protect the accused from malicious prosecution. When a criminal proceeding is instituted with the mala-fide intention to harass a person, the High Court can quash the entire proceeding to secure the ends of justice. The Apex Court has issued seven guidelines where the inherent powers vested by Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised. The relevant observations read thus:

"8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible

R/CR.MA/8105/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2021

guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

8. Having considered the allegations made in the impugned complaint

R/CR.MA/8105/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/12/2021

in light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above- referred decisions, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint filed by the respondent-complainant is a clear misuse and abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. qua the applicant herein.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being FIR No.11196001200008 registered with Mahila Police Station, Vadodara City and all consequential proceeding initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. Rule is made absolute.

(GITA GOPI, J)

PRAVIN KARUNAN