Gujarat High Court
Patel Mineshbhai Parshottambhai & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & on 10 March, 2017
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.MA/6374/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 6374 of 2013
==========================================================
PATEL MINESHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI & 3....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 10/03/2017
ORAL ORDER
The arguments in this petition were heard by this court on 23.2.2017 and the matter was scheduled for orders on 27.2.2017; request made by the learned counsel Mr. Kamlesh Kotai on behalf of Mr. Nisarg Trivedi for negotiation of the matter was acceded to and time was granted. Learned counsel Mr. Kotai states that the matter could not be settled and thus, this court proceeds to pass the order.
2. The first petitioner is husband of respondent No. 2 and rest of the petitioners are her in-laws.
3. Complaint dated 3.4.2013 in Visnagar police station registered at Crime Register No. II-219 of 2013 alleging offence under sections 498A, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act read with sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 08:52:55 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/6374/2013 ORDER Act has given rise to this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short) wherein quashment of the complaint is prayed for.
4. Marriage span of the spouse at the time of the complaint was 21 years. Out of the wedlock, they have a son now aged about 17 years.
5. The dispute relates back to the year 2002 when the first petitioner went to USA leaving behind his wife and the son. When he returned in 2005, it appears that insistence of the second respondent wife to take her along with her son to USA for cohabitation with the first petitioner gave rise to certain disputes. It appears that, meanwhile other in-laws being petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 also settled in USA by then but had been visiting India at some intervals.
6. In above factual background, complaint above stated came to be lodged mentioning the above dates and events. It is, inter alia, alleged in the complaint that in the year 2007 when the first petitioner had been in India, the complainant was staying with her in laws and it is alleged that on her insistence for taking her abroad there were heated exchange of words wherein the first petitioner called her beggar and demanded Rs. 50 lakh. It is alleged that her parents in-law, sister-in-law and husband had beaten her and drove her away out of the house and that on the date of lodgement of the complaint she has been residing since then at Barotwas in a rented premise. Her husband then proceeded to America and returned on 19.3.2013 and on the date of lodgement of complaint on 3.4.2013 second respondent along with her son represented to him for maintenance upon which also she is alleged to have been beaten and abused by her husband and father-in-law with the result she received Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 08:52:55 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/6374/2013 ORDER scratches on her left hand. It is also alleged that her husband rushed on her with a sword in presence of the neighbours Vismay S. Patel and Jilesh Ahswinbhai Patel who intervened in the scuffle and thereafter, the complainant states that she lodged the complaint with the help of her brother Tusharbhai, resident of Balisana.
7. A bare perusal of the complaint indicates the occurrence of certain offence and it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose any offence.
8. It is argued that no complaint was lodged for the occurrence of 2007 immediately and it is only in the present complaint that false case alleging the offence relating to the said period of time is pleaded in the complaint. It is not under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to appreciate the merits of the complaint; it should be rather left to the best judgement of the court below. Therefore, such a contention cannot be gone into at this stage.
9. Relying upon the passport of the petitioners, it is contended that the averment that petitioners No. 2 and 3 had participated in the offence in the year 2007 are false. To record such a conclusion, it would be for the trial court to appreciate the contents of the passports and at this stage under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. it is not possible to determine the falsity of the complaint qua petitioners No. 2 and 3 by appreciating the said documents. The age of the parents-in-law of the complainant is also of no relevance at this stage. It is worthwhile to note that the complaint contains specific averments regarding the occurrence. The complainant claims that the accused committed offence as and when they were present in India. Prima facie, there is no exaggeration of story to rope in the innocent persons. True that if the complainant in Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 08:52:55 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/6374/2013 ORDER a given case comes out with exaggerated story and intends to rope in the innocent persons under section 498A of the IPC, this court would exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. as indicated above in Preeti Gupta & Anr v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. in the instant case, however, no such scenario appears to be emerging from the complaint.
10. Whether or not the fact of abandonment of the complainant and her son in India by accused, more particularly, her husband and whether or not she was driven out of matrimonial house and whether such act would amount to cruelty within the meaning of section 498A of the IPC are all the facts to be appreciated during trial and not in a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
11. Concededly, while referring to the same incident as referred to by the complainant i.e. the one dated 19.3.2013, father-in-law of the complainant has also lodged a criminal complaint on 24.5.2013 which is registered in the same police station at II-Crime Register No. 337 of 2013. This complaint, thus, fortifies the occurrence of 19.3.2013 and thus, it cannot be said that no offence as alleged in the complaint on 19.3.2013 had occurred at this stage.
12. Under the above circumstances, this court is of the opinion that no case for exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is made out. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Notice discharge. Interim relief vacated.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) (pkn) Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 08:52:55 IST 2017