JUDGMENT :

1. The rule issued by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2022 has been served to respondent no.2, but failed to appear.

2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-190 of 2018 registered with Puna Police Station, Dist.: Surat for the offfences punishable under section 498A, 323 and 114 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

3. Mr. Manan A.Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the respondent no.2 – complainant and petitioner no.4 is aunt of the complainant, who is living separately since many years. Mr. Shah states that the impugned FIR is a classic case of misuse of provision of section 498A of the IPC, where the complaint has been registered by respondent no.2 in connivance with the son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 only for the family property.

3.1 Mr. Shah states that son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 had married with respondent no.2 – complainant on 27.04.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals and after sometime the son of petitioner nos.1 and 2 had started residing separately with the complainant, and thus Mr. Shah states that, prior to the complaint for last many years the son along with complainant had separated from his parents.

3.2 Mr. Shah submitted that on 07.04.2018, the son of petitioner nos.1 and 2, who is husband of respondent no.2, came to the house of the petitioners showing his inclination to stay with them. The parents – petitioner nos.1 and 2 got suspicious of his move and therefore asked his intention of coming back in the house almost after nine years, when he had separated by taking an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and gold ornaments stating that he would never return back to the house, and to this query the son of petitioner nos.1 and 2 stated that he wanted to stay with them out of love and affinity; and thus out of attachment being the grandparents of three children of the son, parents had granted him permission to stay and they started residing with the parents from 18.04.2018.

3.3 Mr. Shah further submitted that it was a malicious and deliberate act of husband of the complainant, as on 14.06.2018 the husband of the complainant had filed a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.219 of 2018 for partition and for other reliefs. The notice was issued in the Suit and the returnable date was 21.06.2018, which is also the date of filing of the FIR. Mr. Shah stated that the impugned FIR is nothing but a counter blast and pressure by the complainant upon the petitioners so as to succumb to the illegal demand of the property. Mr. Shah thus states that the parents had no other recourse but to give public notice on 09.05.2018, as during the stay of son along with them, he had initiated certain acts and had transacted with 3rd party in connection with the property, therefore the parents by giving public notice have disowned him.

3.4 Mr. Shah submits that the very act of entering into the house on 18.04.2018 was with an ulterior motive to defame the petitioners, and complainant had even threatened the petitioners by consuming phenyle on 03.05.2018 and was admitted in Unity Hospital; however, when the neighbours supported the case of the petitioners no FIR was registered; thereafter the complainant filed complaint on 21.06.2018. Thus, Mr. Shah stated that the FIR, which has been lodged, very cleverly removes the husband and all the allegations are directed towards the petitioners as the parents-in-law, sister-in-law and further the paternal aunt who is not even staying with them.

4. Learned APP relying on the report of the police states that the complainant was staying in the joint family and on minor domestic issues, she had been harassed by stating that she does not know to cook and was harassed for bringing less dowry and therefore she was