Gujarat High Court
Bharatiben Chandrakantbhai Kapadia vs State Of Gujarat on 25 March, 2022
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/368/2016 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 368 of 2016
==========================================================
BHARATIBEN CHANDRAKANTBHAI KAPADIA & 1 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR ISHAN MIHIR PATEL(6508) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MD MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 25/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Kunal Shah on behalf of the applicants, learned APP Ms.Mehta for the respondent State and learned Advocate Mr.Ishan Patel for respondent No.2.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of Rule.
3. By way of this application, the applicants pray for quashing of the FIR being C.R. No.I-47/2015 registered with Mahila Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, and 114 of IPC and for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah for the applicants would submit that the applicants before this Court are the original accused No.2 and 3 i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Learned Advocate would submit that while the present application is preferred praying for quashing of the FIR on its own merits, there are certain subsequent developments, based upon which the merits of the allegations may not Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 29 20:45:21 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/368/2016 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2022 be required to be looked into. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah would submit that subsequent to the filing of the present application, the accused No.1 i.e. husband and the complainant - respondent No.2 herein have got divorced. Such divorce having taken place in Canada and whereas subsequent to the divorce, respondent No.2 having remarried and also having a child, keeping the impugned FIR pending insofar as the applicants herein would be nothing but an exercise in futility. Learned Advocate would further submit that having regard to such fact as referred to herein above, this Court may interfere and quash the impugned FIR insofar as the present applicants are concerned.
5. As against the same, learned Advocate Mr.Ishan Patel appearing for the respondent, while he would not dispute the fact that the complainant and the original accused No.1 have got divorced and the complainant having got remarried and also having a child from the second marriage, yet he would vehemently oppose quashing of the impugned FIR qua the present applicants on such facts. Learned Advocate would submit that apart from serious allegations being levelled in the FIR, there are also material to show that the applicants had also sought for dowry from the present respondent No.2. Learned Advocate Mr.Patel would submit that such facts have been placed before this Court by way of an affidavit-in- reply by respondent No.2.
6. As against the same, learned Advocate Mr.Shah appearing on behalf of the applicants would submit that the documents being relied upon by the respondent No.2 do not form part of the charge-sheet and whereas the same may not be considered by this Court.
7. Learned APP Ms.Mehta for the respondent State would submit that while allegations in the FIR are serious, yet considering the subsequent developments, this Court may pass appropriate orders.
Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 29 20:45:21 IST 2022R/CR.MA/368/2016 ORDER DATED: 25/03/2022
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, the FIR would only reveal that allegations against the applicants are of having harassed respondent No.2 with regard to not doing household work properly and of the like nature. Harassment, with which the respondent No.2 is actually aggrieved is allegedly by the original accused No.1 i.e. the husband. That the respondent No.2 having divorced from original accused No.1 and having subsequently remarried and also having a child, in the considered opinion of this Court, are relevant facts, which ought to be considered while deciding whether the impugned FIR should be permitted to be prosecuted any further. In the considered opinion of this Court, the allegations against the applicants herein are of the nature of having harassed respondent No.2 with regard to not doing household work properly etc., coupled with the subsequent developments, the Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served, if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are permitted to be prosecuted any further against the present applicants.
9. Having regard to the same, the impugned FIR being C.R. No.I-47/2015 registered with Mahila Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and further proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside insofar as the present applicants are concerned.
10. The present application is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) V.V.P. PODUVAL Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Mar 29 20:45:21 IST 2022