The importance of specific allegations and roles of accused in the complaint, as well as the elements necessary to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 and 406 of the IPC.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Panthil P. Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicants, Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and Mr. A.A. Zabuawala, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 - original complainant.

2. By way of the present writ-application the writ-applicants 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-43 of 2016 registered with Mahila Police Station, District : Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition as stated by the applicants herein reads thus :-

3.1 It is stated that the respondent No.2 filed the impugned FIR on 23.11.2016, alleging that the marriage of the respondent No.2 with the petitioner no.1 was solemnized on 25.05.1998 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. It is alleged by the respondent No.2 - original complainant that the respondent No.2 was treated well by the writ-applicants, however, allegedly, the respondent No.2 was subjected to physical and mental harassment and torture. It is stated that out of the wedlock between the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 they have three daughters and that the writ-applicants did not care about daughters of the respondent No.2.

4. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that one of the daughters of the respondent No.2 passed away on 13.02.2010 and allegedly, the petitioners did not show any concern about the daughters of the respondent No.2. It is further her case that the respondent No.2 was abused and humiliated by the petitioners frequently and it is alleged that the respondent No.2 was suspicious about relationship of the petitioner No.1 with some other woman for which the respondent No.2 had fought with the petitioners. The petitioners meted out physical cruelty on the respondent No.2 and on 12.09.2012, the respondent No.2 was driven out of her matrimonial house along with her two daughters Aditi and Neha. It is stated by the respondent No.2 that the petitioners resolved the dispute and entered into a compromise with respondent No.2. However, subsequently, thereafter the respondent No.2 was subjected to harassment. It is alleged that the father-in-law hit the younger daughter of the respondent No.2 and she had to be treated at Pardi Hospital. It is also alleged by the respondent No.2 that the she was not treated well and that she was subjected to humiliation and harassment. It is stated by the respondent No.2 that on 16.04.2016, she was beaten by the petitioners and that allegedly on 22.04.2016, she was once again driven out of her matrimonial house.

5. In view of above, the respondent No.2 was constrained to register the impugned FIR as stated above.

6. Mr. Panthil Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants herein submitted that being aggrieved by the impugned complaint registered by the respondent No.2, the applicants herein are constrained to approach this Court by praying for the following reliefs :

"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-43 of 2016 registered with Mahila Police Station, Dist Surat (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) and all consequential proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.;

(B) During pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further proceedings / investigation of F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-43 of 2016 registered with Mahila Police Station, Dist Surat (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) and all consequential proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.;

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper; in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

7. At the outset, Mr. Panthil Majmudar, the learned advocate appearing for the applicants does not press t