Gujarat High Court
Bhadreshbhai Shankalchand Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 June, 2023
Bench: M. R. Mengdey
R/CR.MA/3873/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3873 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
BHADRESHBHAI SHANKALCHAND PATEL & 4 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH K KANANI(2157) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS. SHRUTI S. PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 09/06/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Application has been filed by the Applicants (Original
Accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for
quashing of First Information Report being I-C.R. No. 263 of 2013 registered
R/CR.MA/3873/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2023
with Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence under Sections
498(A), 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3
and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rajesh K. Kanani for the Applicants. He
submitted that the present FIR has been lodged against the present Applicants
and her husband named Rakesh Kumar Patel making allegations for the offence
mentioned herein above. He submitted that the Applicant Nos. 1 and 2
happened to be father-in-law and mother-in-law of Respondent No.2 who were
living separately from Respondent No.2 and her husband. The Applicant Nos.
3 and 4 happened to be brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Devar & Devrani) of
Respondent No.2 who are living in Australia whereas the Applicant No.5
happens to be sister-in-law of Respondent No.2 (Nanand) who also is residing
in Jamaica since her marriage. The allegations made against these Applicants
in the FIR are vague and no specific overt act has been attributed to the
Applicants in commission of the offence in question. He also submitted that
though Respondent No.2 has lodged the present FIR against the present
Applicants as well as her own husband, she continues to stay with her husband
namely Rakesh Kumar Patel and on 19.11.2014 has given birth to the son of
the said Rakesh Kumar Patel. This indicates that the allegations made in the
FIR are false and concocted. He therefore submitted to allow the present
Application and quash the FIR qua the Applicants.
3. Learned APP Ms. Shruti S. Pathak appearing for Respondent No.1 -
State has opposed the present Application and submitted that specific
allegations as regards the demand of dowry have been made against the
Applicants and thus, the offences as alleged in the FIR are made out against the
present Applicants. It is therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.
4. This Court vide order dated 24.3.2014 had ordered 'To Issue Rule' in
R/CR.MA/3873/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2023
the present matter. Though the notice of Rule was duly served upon
Respondent No.2, she choose not to appear. Again vide order dated 28.4.2023,
this Court had ordered 'Issuance of Fresh Notice of Rule to Respondent No.2,
making it returnable on 9.6.2023' i.e. today. Though the said notice has also
been duly served upon Respondent No.2, she has choosen not to appear before
this Court. Thus, it appears that Respondent No.2 is not interested in
proceeding with the present matter.
5. The Applicants herein are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-
law and sisters-in-law of Respondent No.2.
6. It emerges from the record that all the Applicants have been living
separately from Respondent No.2 and Applicant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been
staying abroad.
7. It also appears that Respondent No.2 has also arraigned her husband
namely Rakesh Kumar Patel in the present FIR as accused.
8. The learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants has submitted a copy
of the birth certificate of Pence on record who was born out of the wedlock
between the present Respondent No.2 and her husband Rakesh Kumar Patel on
19.11.2014. This indicates that though the present FIR was lodged by
Respondent No.2 on 13.9.2013, the Respondent No.2 continued to stay with
her husband and has given birth to her son from the said wedlock. This
indicates that the relations between the Respondent No.2 and her husband were
cordial.
9. Considering the allegations made in the FIR and against the present
Applicants, it appears that the allegations levelled against the present
Applicants are vague and trivial in nature.
R/CR.MA/3873/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/06/2023
10. In view of the aforesaid, the present FIR appears to be nothing but an
abuse of process of law so far as the present Applicants are concerned and
hence, there is no point in keeping the present proceedings pending against the
present Applicants and hence, the present Application deserves to be allowed.
11. Under the circumstances ,the present Application is allowed. The FIR I-
C.R. No. 263 of 2013 registered with Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad for
the offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Pebnal
Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and all other
consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed and set aside
so far as it relates to the present Applicants.
Rule is made absolute.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
J.N.W
