JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent–State.

2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the FIR bearing CR No.I-6/2018 registered with Mehsana City “A” Division Police Station for offences punishable under sections 498(A) and 114 of the IPC as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to terminate all subsequent proceedings in connection with the FIR.

3. The complainant is the daughter-in-law of the applicant and wife of accused no.1– Ritesh Shrimali. Mr. Gadhvi submits that the applicant is having one daughter and two sons and is residing at District Patan with the family, while the son Ritesh accused no.1 is living separately with his family.

4. Mr. Gadhavi submits that the son of the applicant is advocate and the allegation against the present applicant as mother-in-law along with the sister-in-law is of rebuking often for domestic work, while in FIR, she states that whenever she used to come to the parental home, she had informed that she was harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law who used to instigate her husband to ask for one-fourth share from her father’s property and bring that as dowry. The complainant has alleged that 5 months prior to the complaint, her husband, present applicant and the sister-in-law had removed her from the house by asking her to bring one-fourth share from father’s house. She has alleged that she had given Rs.70,000/- earlier to her husband and Rs.30,000/- to the father-in-law. Inspite of that, they were demanding more dowry. It is alleged that on the day of FIR, her parents-in-law and her husband had come to her house, quarreled with her, abused her threatening not to return back without taking one-fourth share of the property.

5. The facts of the matter reflect that the matrimonial life is more than 12 years and the husband is a lawyer. She states that she was harassed for domestic work while no such specific allegations are found in the FIR suggesting any such details of such harassment which could fall under the definition of cruelty as envisaged under Section 498A of the IPC. The fact of asking her share from the parental house would not constitute an offence to consider any act of cruelty which could be in the form of willful conduct as would have drawn the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health mental or physical of the woman and the harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any other person related to her to meet such demand. The complainant’s husband is an advocate by profession. Asking for the share in the property of the father would not fall as unlawful demand as the law provides for the share of the daughters in the ancestral property. The complainant has not specified as to in what form she was harassed for the share in the property of the father and how the present applicant would have influenced her in such demand. The harassment so alleged does not create any proximate link of accusing cruelty for dowry demands. The offence would also not fall within the statutory limit of drawing inference of any cruelty as the matrimonial life is more than 12 years.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this is a case of dowry demand and it has to be viewed very seriously. It is urged not to exercise the discretion against the mother-in-law.

7. This Court would like to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State Of U.P. & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741. The Court held as under:-

“24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of t