Gujarat High Court

Vinubhai Chanabhai Chavda vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2021

Bench: Gita Gopi

     R/CR.MA/963/2019                                       ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 963 of 2019

==========================================================
                         VINUBHAI CHANABHAI CHAVDA
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. MONALI BHATT, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 25/06/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and Mr. K.S.Chandrani, learned advocate, waive

service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents Nos.1 & 2

respectively.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the

complaint being C.R.No. I-1/2019 dated 11.1.2019 registered

with Jamkandorna Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot (Rural) for

offfences punishable under sections 376(2)(k), 376(2)(n),

376B, 450, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and the

proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

R/CR.MA/963/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021

3. Mr. Premal Rachh, learned advocate for the applicant,

submitted that the impugned FIR is a counterblast. He

submitted that the accused No.1 of the impugned FIR was in

romantic relationship with the complainant and they had

eloped on 30.5.2018. After that they got married and got their

marriage registered with the Registrar of Marriages, Patanvav,

Tal. Dhoraji, Rajkot on 31.5.2018. The accused No.1 and the

complainant independently and jointly has also executed

affidavit to the effect that the marriage was on their own

volition and at free will without any force or coercion. Mr.

Rachh submitted that as they apprehended criminal action

from the side of the complainant's family, they made

representation to the PSI Jamkandorna Police Station.

Thereafter, the Mother of the accused No.1 was attacked by

the parents and relatives of the complainant- respondent No.2

and an FIR came to be lodged on 4.6.2018. Thus, Mr. Rachh

submitted that after a period of 6 months i.e. on 11.1.2019,

due to matrimonial dispute, a false FIR under Sections 376(2)

(k), 376(2)(n), 376B, 450, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC

came to be filed. Mr. Rachh submitted that owing to the order

dated 22.1.2019, no charge-sheet was filed against the present

petitioners while accused No.1 was chargesheeted and

Sessions Case No. 16/2019 was instituted in the Court of

R/CR.MA/963/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021

Additional Sessions Judge at Dhoraji, District: Rajkot. Mr.

Rachch submitted that the evidence was recorded and after

the appreciation of evidence, the accused No.1 was acquitted

from all the charges on 21.9.2020. Mr. Rachh states that since

no case was found against the accused No.1, there can be no

ground for further proceedings against the present petitioners,

the only allegation against the present petitioners is of

threatening the complainant, six months prior to the FIR

stating that if she returns to her parental home, she would be

killed. Mr. Rachh submitted that no allegations could be proved

during the trial in Sessions Case No.16 of 2019. Further, even if

prima-facie those allegations are to be considered then in view

of the judgment in Sessions Case, this allegations would not

stand and therefore, has prayed that the impugned complaint

may be quashed and set aside.

4. Mr. Nilay Thaker, learned advocate for respondent no.2,

original complainant, submitted that the allegations against

the present petitioners are under Section 506(2) of IPC and

they are independent of the charges against the impugned

accused under Section 376, as invoked in the FIR. He

submitted that the present application be rejected.

R/CR.MA/963/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021

5. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted

that the accused are required to stand the trial though accused

No.1 has been acquitted. She stated that the allegations are

serious in nature and therefore, the present application be

rejected.

6. This Court has heard the learned advocates on both the

sides and has perused the material on record. The accused No.

1 Ravi Keshavjhai Chavda is acquitted in Sessions Case No. 16

of 2019 on 21.9.2020 against whom charges were of 376(2)

(k), 376(2)(n), 376B, 450, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC. The

matrimonial dispute appears to have taken acrimonious turn

leading into filing of FIR and counter FIR. The documents on

record show that the marriage between the accused No.1 and

the complainant was registered before the Registrar of

Marriage, Patanvav, Tal. Dhoraji, Rajkot on 31.5.2018. The

evidence was given during the trial. Witness testimonies were

examined and thereafter trial Court came to the conclusion of

acquitting the accused No.1.

7. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and

others, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court made the following

observations:-

R/CR.MA/963/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021

"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 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;

R/CR.MA/963/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021

(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. It appears from the contents of the FIR dated 4.6.2018

and the impugned FIR and the fact that the complainant of the

impugned FIR had married accused No.1, the impugned FIR is

with malicious intention with ulterior motive to wreak

vengeance. The private and personal grudge has been given

shape of impugned FIR. The case of the present Petitioners fall

under Category-7 of the State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and

others (Supra). No fruitful result would be received in

continuing of the proceedings against the present Petitioners

towards the impugned FIR. It would be wastage of judicial

time. The trial is hardly going to be culminated into conviction.

R/CR.MA/963/2019 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2021