Gujarat High Court
Manoj K Ramchandani vs State Of Gujarat on 30 November, 2021
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/SCR.A/132/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 132 of 2013
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 ?
================================================================
MANOJ K RAMCHANDANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI(5576) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R)(71) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 30/11/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the
criminal complaint being C.R. No. II - 100 of 2012 registered with J.P.
Road Police Station, Vadodara City under Sections 498 and 506(2) of
IPC and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.
R/SCR.A/132/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021
2. Learned advocate Mr. Abhiraj Trivedi for the petitioner submitted
that the averments made in the complaint itself suggests that in the year
2010, the wife of the petitioner herein was serving as Commission Agent
with Bajaj Life Insurance Company, during which time, the petitioner
herein was serving on a senior managerial post in the said Company. He
submitted that on a delusional belief and with the intention to sever
relationship with his wife, the respondent No.2 herein filed the impugned
complaint against the petitioner by making him a scapegoat. He
submitted that the petitioner herein was having business relations with the
wife of respondent No.2 herein, as she used to procure business for the
Company while serving as a Commission Agent. Moreover, the petitioner
is a married man and is having two daughters. Hence, the impugned
complaint against the petitioner is an abuse and misuse of the process of
law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Chaudhary, who appears on behalf of
the newly added party-respondent, i.e. wife of respondent No.2-original
complainant, submitted that respondent No.2 and his wife have dissolved
their marriage with mutual consent in the year 2017 vide judgment and
order passed by the Family Court, Vadodara in Family (H.M.P.) No. 598
of 2014 dated 01.07.2015. He produced a copy of the divorce decree,
which is taken on record.
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for
the newly added party-respondent No.3. In the impugned complaint, the
respondent-complainant has invoked the provisions of Sections 498 and
506(2) of IPC against the petitioner herein. The said provisions were
invoked on account of the alleged relationship that the petitioner had with
the wife of respondent-complainant. It is a matter of record that the
R/SCR.A/132/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021
respondent-complainant and his wife have got divorced with mutual
consent on 01.07.2015. Now, when the very basis for the filing of the
impugned complaint, i.e. the marriage between respondent No.2-
complainant and his wife does not exist, no purpose would be served in
continuing the prosecution in the form of impugned complaint against the
petitioner.
5. In the case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR
1992 SC 604, the Apex Court made the following observations:-
"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
R/SCR.A/132/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/11/2021
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."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, this Court is
of the opinion that the impugned complaint filed by respondent No.2 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.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned complaint
being C.R. No. II - 100 of 2012 registered with J.P. Road Police Station,
Vadodara City and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance
thereof are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is
permitted.
(GITA GOPI,J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
