Point of law : Inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines i.e. (I) to secure the ends of justice or (II) to prevent abuse of process of any Court.

ORDER :

1. By way of present application, applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being IIC. R.No.18 of 2014 registered with Visnagar Taluka Police Station, Dist.: Mehsana for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC” for short) as well as proceedings arising therefrom qua present applicants.

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that applicants are the quite innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged against them in the FIR and they have been wrongly involved in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that looking to the allegations levelled in the FIR, no ingredients of any offence much less the offence alleged in the FIR is attracted prima facie. It is further submitted that since the complainant’s side has apprehension of initiation of actions/proceedings by the Visa Authority pursuant to the FIR lodged by Meenaben (applicant no.4) against her in-laws i.e. present complainant and his son, therefore, only with a view to pressurize the applicants to withdraw the said FIR filed by applicant no.4, complainant has filed the present second FIR against the applicants. It is further submitted that the present FIR has been filed for the alleged offence of bigamy by the complainant and in fact, the complaint is not filed by the aggrieved person, i.e. Parisha. It is further submitted that since Parisha herself has deserted her husband i.e. applicant no.1, she did not bother for the marital status of applicant no.1, but without her consent, her father lodged the false complaint with the aforesaid oblique motive. It is further submitted that FIR has been filed after a delay of more than 12 years of the alleged offence. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for applicants to quash the FIR.

4. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 has submitted that petitioners, with an intent to pressurize the complainant and to see that the complainant will accept their illegal demand of extracting money, though respondent no.2- complainant is a senior citizen, have subject the complainant’s daughter -Pareshaben to harass. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 is a law breaker and he has taken law in his hand inasmuch as without obtaining divorce from daughter of respondent no.2, he got married to another lady viz. Lataben Tusharbhai – petitioner no.3 herein. It is further submitted that petitioner no.1 has never made any effort to maintain the complainant’s daughter and the daughter of the complainant had suffered untold humiliation at the hands of petitioner nos.1 and 3, who have derived help from other petitioners and two daughters are born from the said illegal marriage. It is further submitted that from the petitioners’ side, harassment has been meted out to respondent no.2’s side. It is further submitted that it is clear that by one or other excuses, petitioners with a view to extract money from the complainant are harassing respondent no.2’s side on one or other reason. Looking to the nature of the offence, learned advocate for respondent no.2 has requested not to quash the impugned FIR.

5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate for respondent no.2 and requested to reject present application.

6. Having heard learned advocate for applicants and learned advocate for respondent no.2 as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that daughter of the complainant viz. Parisha got married with present applicant no.1 in the year 1990 and the son of the complainant got married with Meenaben (present applicant no.4) i.e. sister of applicant no.1, as per Sata (Exchange) System. It also appears that the complainant’s daughter is residing at USA since last more than 20 years and having citizenship also and as per the complaint, after marria