JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State and Mr.S.L.Vaishya, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The present application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) with a prayer to quash the FIR being CR No.I – 63 of 2018 dated 3.11.2018 lodged with East Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 294(b) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

3. It is stated by the applicants that FIR has been lodged by the complainant for oblique and ulterior motive and that the same is in sheer abuse of the process of law and Court and therefore, it is required to be quashed.

4. Ms.Nisha Parikh, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife and their marriage had solemnized in the year 2015 and out of the said wedlock, they have a daughter. She further submitted that after marriage, respondent No.2 along with her husband was residing with inlaws who are applicant Nos.2 and 3. There was quarrel between applicant No.1 – husband and respondent No.2 – wife and thereafter, both of them started living separately. Apart from the said facts, Ms.Parikh submitted that false allegation of demand of Rs.50,000/- as dowry is made. In fact, no such demand was made by any of the applicants. She further submitted that after husband and wife started staying separately, it was the husband who had consumed poison and father-inlaw of respondent No.2 i.e. applicant No.3 herein had taken the husband to Vinus Hospital. Ms.Parikh further submitted that as applicant Nos.2 and 3 apprehended unusual action from the side of their daughter-in-law so they had severe relationship and as a counter blast, the present FIR has been filed. She further submitted that there is no physical or mental torture from any of the applicants to the complainant. The allegations in the FIR are general and vague and no ingredients of section 498- A of IPC or of the Dowry Prohibition Act are satisfied in the matter nor the FIR discloses guilty approach under section 323 or section 294(b) of IPC of any of the applicants.

5. Mr.S.L.Vaishya, learned advocate for respondent No.2 – complainant has submitted that at present, the complainant is staying alone and she is required to be protected.

6. Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the respondent State has submitted that it is only during trial the issue can be decided whether alleged act as stated in the complaint would attract ingredients of sections invoked in the said FIR. She submitted that cruelty as explained in section 498-A of IPC would mean any wilful conduct which is of such a nature by the husband and relatives of the husband so as to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Ms.Bhatt further submitted that allegation of physical beating is against the husband and allegation of demand of dowry is against all the applicants and thus, such act form offence as defined in section 498-A of IPC. Harassment to the woman with a view to cause her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand would constitute “cruelty” and hence, the prayer made in the petition for quashing of the FIR is required to be rejected.

7. In the case of Rashmi Chopra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 357 wherein the Apex Court while dealing with the allegation of dowry demand and harassment to the girl preferred to quash the criminal proceedings considering it as abuse of the process of law and it was held that allegations under section 498-A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act were made only to harass and p