The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and roles of accused in a complaint, the power of the High Court to quash proceedings if it's an abuse of process or in the interest of justice, and the need for seriousness and specificity in allegations of harassment under Section 498A, IPC.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present application, the applicants herein are invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the applicants herein have prayed for quashing of FIR being C.R. No. I-52 of 2016 registered with Navsari Town Police Station, Navsari along with all the prior and subsequent proceedings thereto qua the present applicants.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present application as stated by the applicants herein reads thus:

It is stated by the applicants herein that it is the case of the prosecution that the respondent No. 2 (First Informant) got married on 11.12.1998 with original accused No. 1 viz. Bhavinbhai Desai (Husband). It is further alleged that the applicant No. 1 and 2 who are original accused No. 2 and 3, both directly and indirectly used to ear poison the accused No. 1 i.e. husband of the respondent No. 2 and the husband used to torture and beat the respondent No. 2 which resulted into FIR being I.C.R. No. 52 of 2016 filed by respondent No. 2 before the concerned Police Station.

3. Heard Mr. Hardik A. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants, Ms. Vrunda Shah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1-State and Ms. Tanuja N. Kachchhi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2-original complainant.

4. Mr. Hardik A. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants herein submitted that the marriage between original accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 came to be solemnized in the year 1998. Initially, applicant-accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were residing in a joint family, however, the applicant-accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 herein shifted from the joint family and started residing separately in a Flat in the year 2000. Mr. Hardik A. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that subsequently in the year 2001, the applicant shifted in their new residential premises. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 gave birth to a baby boy at Navsari. Mr. Hardik A. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants submitted the allegations levelled against the applicants herein in the FIR are exaggerated and not trustworthy.

5. Ms. Tanuja N. Kachchhi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2-original complainant was not in a position to controvert the fact however submitted that the accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2-original complainant were residing in joint family till March-2003 and reiterated contentions taken in the affidavit-in-reply.

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, in view of this Court, undisputedly the applicant-accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2-complainant entered into wedlock in the year 1998 and they have been residing separately since 2003. The impugned FIR came to be filed in the year 2016 and having gone through the contention of the FIR, the allegations that the applicant herein used to ear poison the accused No. 1 i.e. husband is devoid of any proof/evidence and the said allegations can be said to be vague qua the present applicants. Further, the aforesaid FIR culminated in to charge-sheet on 01.11.2016. The said charge-sheet is also silent qua the role of the present applicants with respect to the alleged complaint.

7. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the following position of law:

(a) In the case of Neelu Chopra and Another vs. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184, paragraphs 9 to 12 read thus:

“(9) In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the Sections and the language of those Sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence.

(10) When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offe