IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
Ritaben Sunilbhai Pathak And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat And Others - Respondent
Special Criminal Application No. 6755 of 2017
Decided on : 03-04-2019
Criminal Law – Criminal Trial – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3 and 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498, 506, 406, 323, 503 read with 114 – Seeking quash and set aside impugned FIR – Offence of harassment and Cruelty – Demand of Dowry – Alleged that her marriage was solemnized with son of petitioners at the time of her marriage, gold and silver ornaments were given to her by her parents also alleged that though it was her Shridhan, said ornaments were taken by her mother-in-law, which had not been returned to her till date – Alleged that before marriage, her husband had purchased one residential house at Vadodara on loan and amount of installments of said loan were demanded and on account of not adhering to the said demand, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by giving ill-treatment – Held, Court perused the contents of the FIR threadbare. A perusal of the allegations made against the petitioner nos.1 and 2, who are father and mother in law of the respondent no.2 would reveal that there is a dispute between the husband and wife and it also appears that after the marriage, husband and wife were residing and thereafter, they shifted to Khandva (MP), wherein also husband and wife were residing together, and thereafter, husband has left the India for Australia. On perusal of the allegations made in the FIR – It clearly transpires that the entire incident of cruelty has happened at Vadodara or at Khandva (MP). Of course, at some place, it has been narrated that in laws were indirectly demanding dowry – It also reveals that after the husband left India, the first informant was residing with in laws at Bhuj and thereafter, she was sent to her parental house at Gandhinagar – On bare reading of the entire FIR, it clearly transpires that no incident has happened at Gandhinagar. Whatever allegations are made are about incidents happened – Therefore in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, it is inevitable conclusion that no part of cause of action arose and therefore, the concerned Police or Magistrate has no jurisdiction and present petition is liable to be quashed and set aside – Petition allowed. (Paras 16 and 17)
A.P. THAKER, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code” for short) seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR bearing C.R.No.I-11 of 2017 registered with Mahila Police Station, Dist: Gandhinagar under Sections 498, 506, 406, 323, 503 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 qua the petitioners.
2. Rule. Ms.Moxa Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State waives service of Rule for the respondent-State and Mr.Kshitij Amin, learned advocate for the respondent no.2- first informant.
3. At the request of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is heard finally.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:-
4.1 The respondent no.2 herein has filed the impugned FIR against the petitioners and their son by making false vexatious allegations against the petitioners.
4.2 It is alleged that her marriage was solemnized with son of the petitioners on 17.02.2014 at Bhuj and at the time of her marriage, gold and silver ornaments were given to her by her parents. It is alleged that though it was her Shridhan, the said ornaments were taken by her mother-in-law, which had not been returned to her till date.
4.3 It is alleged that before marriage, her husband had purchased one residential house at Vadodara on loan and amount of installments of said loan were demanded and on account of not adhering to the said demand, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by giving ill-treatment.
4.4 It is alleged that her husband used to come late from his office and even after returning late, and she was not permitted to touch his phone.
4.5 It is alleged that on account of non-payment of such amount demanded from her, the accused had started rumors in their community about her and further causing her mental and physical harassment.
4.6 It is also alleged that at the time of marriage, her husband was employed with L & T Company at Vadodara who had been transferred to Khandwa (MP). It is also alleged that the said transfer of her husband had given rise to free hand for giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. It is also alleged that her husband used to return late at night from his office and pressurizing her for payment of money for the purpose of clearing the amount of loan.
4.7 She has alleged some instances of mental and physical harassment and ill-treatment given to her. It is alleged that behind her back with the help of his father, her husband had made preparation for going to Australia for doing MBA and for the said purpose, she was asked to borrow money from her parents after mortgaging her parents' Gandhinagar house with a view to come out from the financial crises.
4.8 It is alleged that at the time of receiving Visa on 06.10.2015, she was given assurance that, after receipt of spouse Visa within 3 months, she will be taken to Australia. It is alleged that her husband had asked for divorce. It is alleged that since there is no any cogent reason for divorce, on 17.08.2016, her parents in company of her grandfather, uncle and other elders had gone to Bhuj at her in-law's house, however, they had been insulted and kicked out by giving threats.
4.9 It is alleged that on 15.02.2017, she had filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Sector-27, Gandhinagar and on 14.03.2017, before the Mahila Police Station, Gandhinagar, wherein the present petitioners were summoned on 23.03.2017. However, during counseling by the police, they had refused to take her back and had denied her matrimonial rights and she was served with legal notice for divorce on 13.08.2016 by her husband.
5. Against the reply filed by the first informant, learned advocate for the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder affirmed by the petitioner no.1, wherein she has denied the allegations made in the affidavi
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwalla and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
L.N.Mukherjee V. State of Madras
Mohan Baitha and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.
Purushottamdas Dalmia Vs. State of West Bengal
State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi and Anr.
Sujata Mukherjee Smt. Vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee
Y.Abraham Ajith and Ors Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.