Gujarat High Court
Mahendrabhai Dahyabhai Talpada vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 5240 of 2022
==========================================================
MAHENDRABHAI DAHYABHAI TALPADA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR. HIREN S SOMAIYA(8031) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS KHUSHBU B VYAS(13496) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
"Cr.P.C."), the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the
complaint being C.R. No.11215018220007 of 2022 registered
with Mahila Police Station, Anand for the offences under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 & 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as
well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the
applicants herein have nothing to do with the offence and have
been falsely implicated in the present case. A bare perusal of the
FIR reveals that all the facts narrated are either false or twisted
with the intent to mislead the court and the investigating
authority. In the present case, The applicant No.1 is the father-in-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
law of the complainant, he has been falsely arraigned as an
accused. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Uncle-in-law and
neighbour & cousin uncle and the allegations against them are
false and frivolous. They have been roped into the present
criminal proceedings to pressure the other applicants into a quick
and beneficial monetary settlement for the complainant. The
allegations made against the all the accused have no basis, as
they do not live under the same roof with the complainant.
3.1. It is further submitted that that marriage was solemnized
between the complainant and accused-husband in the year 1993
and till date, she has never raised her voice about the alleged
incident. The present complaint is filed as a counterblast of the
suit proceedings being HMP/05/2021 filed by the accused No.1-
husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before
the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Umbergaon. The
accused No.1 and respondent No.2-complainant was living
separately since 2018. It is further submitted that she wants to
take divorce from her husband and she does not wants to return
his house. It is further submitted that the complaint was filed
with an intention to tarnish the social and economic prestige of
the applicants and to harass them and to extort money and
ensure a handsome settlement in the event of a divorce.. All
allegations of physical, verbal, and emotional torture are false
and baseless. None of the incidents alleged in the complaint ever
took place. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are
taken at face value, they do not attract the provisions of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
Indian Penal Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even if the entire
complaint is read in its entirety, the allegations made against the
applicants are of such a general and ambiguous nature that they
are not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the learned
advocate for the applicants requests that the present application
be allowed.
4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has
opposed the application and submitted that the complainant was
subjected to mental and physical harassment by the accused and
also received life threats. The accused made her life hard to live,
compelling her to leave her matrimonial home. In view of the
above, the learned APP requested that the application be
dismissed.
5. In support of her arguments, learned advocate for the
respondent No.2 has submitted Affidavit-in-reply, which is taken
on record. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2
has adopted the submissions of the learned APP and submits
that the applicants are directly involved in the offence of
mentally and physically harassing the complainant and therefore,
she requests that the present application be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
It appears that the applicant No.1 is the father-in-law of the
complainant, he has been falsely arraigned as an accused. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the Uncle-in-law, neighbour & cousin
uncle of the complainant, and the allegations against them are
false and frivolous. They have been roped into the present
criminal proceedings to pressurize the other applicants into a
quick and beneficial monetary settlement for the complainant
during the divorce. The allegations made against the all the
accused have no basis, as they do not live under the same roof. It
appears that the marriage was solemnized in the year. Even
other allegations are also levelled, whatever allegations levelled
against the family members are that they are involved in the
offence. It appears that due to continuous mental and physical
harassment by her in-laws, the complainant has filed the present
complaint. The allegations are general in nature. The allegations
against them are general, such as instigating and verbally
harassing the complainant. In view of above the present
application deserves consideration.
7. Going through the compilation, it appears that the
complaint is filed at the instance of respondent No.2. In the
present case, the applicant No.1 is the father-in-law of the
complainant. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the Uncle-in-law,
neighbour & cousin uncle of the complainant.The complainant
asserts that her marriage took place on 16.01.1993, according to
Hindu rituals. She received gifts from her parents and relatives
during the marriage. Her parents gave her gold and silver
ornaments, along with furniture, clothes, and utensils. As per
the say of the complainant that out of this wed-lock they are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
blessed by three children 2 sons and 1 daughter out of three
Daughter Vasantiben and Son Rakesh got married and Daughter
is residing at her matrimonial home. While two sons are residing
with the complainant. She moved in with accused No. 1-husband,
who is employed in the Police Department and filed a separate
quashing petition before this Hon'ble Court. All the articles
belonging to the complainant, including the aforementioned
gifts, were taken away by accused No. 1-husband and remain in
his custody to this day. Despite facing regular late-night returns
and alcohol consumption by accused No. 1, which often led to
arguments about household chores, the complainant endured
this treatment for the sake of her two sons and daughter, in
order to secure their future. The complainant further alleges that
accused No. 1 engaged in an illicit relationship with another
woman, resulting in his prolonged absence from home and
neglect towards the children, thus subjecting her to harassment.
Furthermore, when the complainant informed the applicant
about the mental and physical abuse inflicted by accused No. 1-
husband, they sided with him. They dismissed her complaints
with a proverbial saying, "A man is like a copper-brass bowl;
cleaning it improves its condition." They advised her not to
restrain accused No. 1's behavior. Accused No. 2 to 4's figurative
support of accused No. 1 allegedly led to physical violence by the
husband against the complainant. However, no specific
allegations are made against accused No. 2 to 4, except for their
role in pressuring accused No. 1. The complainant further states
that accused No. 1 demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
her. He insisted that unless she obtained this amount from her
brother, she would not be allowed to live peacefully with her
children at their matrimonial home. The complainant responded
that her brother was unable to meet this demand, prompting
accused No. 1 to expel her from the house seven to eight months
ago. Since then, she has been residing at her brother's residence.
When the complainant accompanying with her brother, sister-in-
law and some other persons of their community, went the house
of the complainant, at that place, during the mediation talk the
applicant had aggressively refused to re-union and stated that
he does not want to keep respondent No.2 and gave threat of
life. In this regard, the complaint is filed.
8. Considering the fact that the allegations levelled against
the applicants are general in nature. In the present case, the
applicant No.1 is father-in-law, whereas applicant Nos.2 and 3 are
uncle-in-law and neighbour & cousin uncle. It appears that
marriage between accused No.1-husband and respondent No.2-
complainant was solemnized in the year 1993. Out of said
wedlock, three children i.e. one daughter and two sons born. All
the children are major. Daughter is 27 year old and both the sons
are 23 year and 20 year old. Elder son and daughter are married.
It appears that during the 23 years of marriage span, no
allegations are levelled against the present applicants, the
differences arose, due to illicit relationship of her husband with
another lady. It is alleged that the present applicants-accused
have favoured the accused No.1 and thereby, they have abetted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
an offence. In affidavit-in-reply, there is a specific stand on the
part of the respondent No.2 that the accused Nos.2 and 3 were
handling the family business of farming and accused No.1 is in
service, due to which, he stay away from his native. It clearly
reveals that applicant No.1 resides separately and accused No.1
resides at Diu due to his service. It appears that present
applicants are influential persons and elders of the family.
Respondent No.2 has to except the demand of obsequies
behaviour of her husband, except this no any allegations are
levelled. Considering the aforesaid fact, it appears that
applicants were forcing to respondent No.2 to give divorce to
her husband. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the
considered view that this is a clear case of over implication and
there is no positive act on the constant harassment, either
mental or physical harassment on the part of the present
accused. With a view to pressurize them, they have dragged into
litigation. In view of above, the present complaint deserves to be
quashed. It appears that applicants are facing charge of Section
498A of IPC. Therefore, as per the allegations made in the
complaint, ingredient of Section 498A is made out. In this regard,
it would be apposite to refer the decisions of the Apex Court in
cases of (i) Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
2023INSC779 / (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015), (ii) Achin
Gupta V. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 369, (iii) Preeti Gupta
and another vs. State of Jharkhand, another [(2010) 7 SCC
667], it is observed that "this Court noted that the tendency to
implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was
observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious
in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities
into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as
allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were
living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different
complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with
great care and circumspection."
8.1. In case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:-
"19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents
of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no
allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who
have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference
of the names of the family members in a matrimonial
dispute without allegation of active involvement in the
matter would not justify taking cognizance against them
overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is
a tendency to involve the entire family members of the
household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a
matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.
20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an
apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of
G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC
693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had
held that the High Court should have quashed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein
all family members had been roped into the matrimonial
litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree
that:
"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute
in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
main purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live peacefully.
But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt
which often assume serious proportions resulting in
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are
also involved with the result that those who could
have counselled and brought about rapprochement
are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as
accused in the criminal case. There are many
reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate the disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law where it takes years and years to conclude and
in that process the parties lose their "young" days
in chasing their cases in different courts." The view
taken by the judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes.
21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC
1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no
doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA
containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code
was to prevent the torture to a woman by her
husband or by relatives of her husband. Section
498A was added with a view to punish the husband
and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of
dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the
wife under Section 498A against the husband and
his relatives and subsequently she has settled her
disputes with her husband and his relatives and the
wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce,
refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High
Court would not be proper as it would prevent
woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose
of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR
becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not
be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It
would however be a different matter depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case
whether to exercise or not to exercise such a
power."
8.2. So far as offence under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC are
also concerned, in this regard, it would be apposite the refer the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kahkasan Kausar
alias Sonam and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 599. Even, no allegation is levelled against the
present accused to cause any injury to the complainant and no
any evidence or medical certificate is produced about the
treatment of alleged injury.
8.3. So far as offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are
concerned, the learned Apex Court in the case of Mohammad
Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC 683, has held that:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
"Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse,
discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount
to an intentional insult within the meaning of
Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary
element of being likely to incite the person insulted
to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and
the other element of the accused intending to
provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of
the peace or knowing that the person insulted is
likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of
abusive language shall have to be decided in the
light of the facts and circumstances of that case and
there cannot be a general proposition that no one
commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he
merely uses abusive language against the
complainant - In judging whether particular abusive
language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court
has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances,
would be the effect of the abusive language used
and not what the complainant actually did as a
result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool
temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary
general nature of the abusive language that is the
test for considering whether the abusive language is
an intentional insult likely to provoke the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not
the particular conduct or temperament of the
complainant. (Para 25- 26)
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the
essential elements for constituting an offence under
Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have
been an act or conduct amounting to intentional
insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive
words, it is necessary to know what those words
were in order to decide whether the use of those
words amounted to intentional insult. In the
absence of these words, it is not possible to decide
whether the ingredient of intentional insult is
present. (Para 28)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 - Before an
offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must
be established that the accused had an intention to
cause alarm to the complainant. (Para 27) 3
Interpretation of Statutes- All penal statutes are to
be construed strictly - Court must see that the thing
charged is an offence within the plain meaning of
the words used and must not strain the words. (Para
19-21)"
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, complaint is filed. It is necessary
to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the
Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires
great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see
that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of
a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision
in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been collected and produced before
the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without
sufficient material. Of course, no hardand-fast rule can be laid
down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any
stage as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava,
IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872 in case of State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the
Apex Court has set out the categories of cases in which the
inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised and
held in para 102 as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Art. 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases 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 guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised :
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5240/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/06/2024
undefined
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."
10. In the result, the applications are allowed only qua
applicants. The impugned complaint being C.R.
No.11215018220007 of 2022 registered with Mahila Police
Station, Anand as well as all consequential proceedings initiated
in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside only qua
applicants herein. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
KUMAR ALOK
