Ravindrabhai Adharbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 2195 Guj

      R/SCR.A/1848/2017                          ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1848 of 2017

==========================================================
     RAVINDRABHAI ADHARBHAI NAGRAL(application is not pressed) & 5
                             other(s)
                             Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
                  Date : 13/03/2023
                   ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

the applicants seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court

praying for quashment of proceedings filed under the provisions

of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The applicants are husband,

father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws

of the respondent no.2. The application being Criminal Misc.

Application No.1378 of 2016 filed under Sections 17, 18, 19, 22

and 23 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of present

application are that, marriage of the respondent no.2 was

solemnized with applicant no.1 on 25.05.1998 and after the

marriage, she went to matrimonial home and after some time,

R/SCR.A/1848/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

she was subjected to harassment, physically and mentally at the

hands of her husband and in-laws. It is alleged that, she was

physically assaulted by her husband and tortured by the

applicants as she delivered a baby girl. It is further alleged that,

in the year of 2012, she was driven out from her matrimonial

home by the applicants after causing injuries by the husband.

The maintenance proceedings were initiated in the year of 2014.

A compromise arrived at between the parties and again parties

decided to stay together and accordingly, she came at her

matrimonial home, however, the relationship could not remain

long lasting as she again on petty issue, tortured mentally and

physically by the applicants. It is alleged that in 2016, she left

the matrimonial home on account of mental and physical

harassment meted out to her by the applicants. She had lodged

the FIR being C.R. No.I-43 of 2016 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian

Penal Code. In such circumstances, the wife-respondent no.2,

has resorted the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and prays

the relief of protection order, residence order, monetary relief

and compensation as provided under the various sections of the

Act.

R/SCR.A/1848/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

3. Heard learned counsel P.P. Majmudar for and on behalf of

the applicants.

4. He submitted that, the allegations in the complaint are

absolutely false and having been alleged only with a view to

harass the entire family members. He would further submits

that, after filing the maintenance application, she has lodged an

FIR under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter,

she has resorted the provisions of Domestic Violence Act which

shows that, the only intention of the complainant is to harass

the applicants and therefore, the proceedings is nothing but

sheer abuse of process of law and Court. During the course of

arguments, he tenders the order dated 04.10.2022 passed in

quashing matters, to submit that, the Coordinate Bench of this

Court quashed the FIR lodged under Section 498A qua the

applicants no.4 to 6.

5. In the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the

applicants would submits that, the continuation of the

proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law which

require to be quashed and set aside.

6. Despite service of notice, respondent no.2-wife has neither

R/SCR.A/1848/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

remained present, nor filed any reply.

7. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the

quashing of the proceedings contending that, there is a specific

allegation made against each of the applicants with respect to

domestic violence allegedly committed by them. The applicants

are living in a joint family and therefore, the disputed facts

cannot be determined at this stage and the same is required to

be tried by the trial Court.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

on perusal of the allegations leveled in the complaint, whether

case is made out to quash the proceedings of Criminal Misc.

Application No.1378 of 2016.

9. The scope and power of the High Court to quash the

criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code is well

settled. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal And Ors. AIR 1992

SC 604, the Apex Court laid down the guidelines for exercising

the inherent powers, giving types of cases where the Court may

exercise its inherent powers to quash a criminal proceeding.

10. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar, 2022 6 SCC 599, has

R/SCR.A/1848/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

observed in para-17 thus:

"17. ...this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A I.P.C. and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

11. In the matter of Kansh Raj Vs. State of Punjab (2005

SCC 207), the Apex Court delineated the duty of criminal courts

while proceeding against relatives of the victim's husband and

held that the Court should be careful in proceedings against

distance relatives in crime pertaining to matrimonial dispute and

dowry deaths and further held that relatives of the husband

should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations,

unless specific instances of their involvement in the offence is

made out.

12. It is relevant to refer and rely to the decision of Geeta

Mehrotra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012 (10) SCC 741),

R/SCR.A/1848/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

wherein the Apex Court held that mere a casual reference of the

names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without

allegations of active involvement in the matter would not justify

taking cognizance against them, overlooking the fact borne out of

experience that there is tendency to involve the entire family

members in the domestic quarrel taking place in the matrimonial

dispute specifically if it happens after the wedding.

13. In light of the settled principle of law and considering the

peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the applicant no.1-husband is not

before this Court as at the time of admission of the petition, he

has not pressed the petition. The allegations made against the

in-laws are on the line of FIR lodged against them under Section

498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant nos.2 and 3 are

facing the charges of the offence punishable under Section

498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that after filing the maintenance

proceedings as well as the FIR under Section 498(A) of the

Indian Penal Code, the in-laws i.e. applicant nos.2 to 6 have

been implicated in the present proceedings with a view to harass

them. Thus, considering the conduct of respondent no.2-wife

R/SCR.A/1848/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

and various litigations filed by her which itself speaks

voluminous about the intention in filing the present application.

Thus, the case is fully covered by category (7) as enumerated by

the Apex Court in the case of Bhajanlal (supra).

14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of

present case, it is necessary to refer the observations made by

the Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vrushali

Jayesh Kore Vs. State of Maharashtra (2023 SCC Online

Bombay 85), which reads thus:

"10. .......It is pertinent to note that unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution can have serious consequences. A person subjected to such litigation suffers immense mental trauma, humiliation and monetary loss. Reckless imputations can also result in serous repercussion on career progression and future pursuits and most importantly it stigmatizes reputation, brings disrepute and lowers the image of a person amongst friends, family and colleagues. It is to be noted that loss of character or bruised reputation cannot be restored even by judicial reprieve. As Shakespeare has famously said that "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; tis something, nothing; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands " But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed". In legal parlance, right to reputation and dignity of an individual is held to be an integrated part of Article 21 and 19(2) of the

R/SCR.A/1848/2017 ORDER DATED: 13/03/2023

Constitution. Therefore, it is imperative for the Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in ft cases, to safeguard and protect the rights of every person subjected to such litigation and prevent misuse of criminal process for personal vendetta."

15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is convinced that the

proceedings filed against the applicant nos.2 to 6 under the

provisions of the Domestic Violence Act are nothing but a sheer

abuse of process of law and Court. Consequently, Criminal Misc.

Application No.1378 of 2016 pending before the Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Surat is hereby quashed qua applicant

nos.2 to 6. The Trial Court is at liberty to proceed further against

applicant no.1-husband in accordance with law. Accordingly,

present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the

aforesaid terms.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) Rakesh