Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This application is filed for quashing of the FIR being C.R. No.I-127/2006 and Criminal Case No.2237/2006 pending before the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara.

2. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant having married respondent no.2 - original complainant and migrated to Canada. However, on account of incompatibility the marriage did not succeed. However, during the course of marriage, a son was born and therefore, the differences between the applicant and the respondent - wife cropped up, which were right to be resolved internally. However, the applicant was HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sun Oct 01 18:31:20 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/12005/2012 ORDER constrained to file a petition for divorce on 29.03.2006 in Canada, and as a counter blast to the petition filed by the applicant for divorce in Canada, the respondent no.2 filed the present FIR on 13.04.2006.

7. I have gone through the allegations made in the FIR, the charge-sheet filed against the arrested accused as well as the judgment rendered by the trial court in connection with the trial of the co-accused. This Court is of the view that the allegations leveled in the FIR do not specifically make out the case of Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against the applicant. The allegations regarding 498(A) also appear to be general in nature. The fact that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent has no more remained compatible, has resulted into filing of the petition for divorce in Canada. The date and chronology, on which the divorce petition is filed in Canada and the impugned FIR filed in Vadodara, would lead this Court to believe that the intention of the wife appears to counter the divorce petition filed in Canada or else the allegations, which are made in the FIR and the chronology of dates mentioned therein. The Court would have accepted the HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sun Oct 01 18:31:20 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/12005/2012 ORDER reaction from the wife at an earlier point of time. In the event that the entire investigation is now scrutinized by the court of proper jurisdiction, which has resulted in clean acquittal of the co-accused, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution, especially when the respondent no.2 has not taken care of remaining present before this Court despite the petition and her complaint pending since the date it was filed.