The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Court can exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of the process of law and ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`the Code’ for short) praying to quash the FIR registered as C.R.No.I-76 of 2003 with GIDC Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad city for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this application are such that the son of the applicants married the respondent no.2 on 28.2.2000 and thereafter, after some time, the applicants started demanding dowry and started to harass the complainant more and more. It is stated that due to illicit relation of her husband with one lady, the things went more worse and we started living separately from the in-laws i.e. the present applicants. It is stated that as the respondent no.2- complainant started opposing her husband about the illicit relation, he started beating the complainant. Thus, the impugned complaint was filed against her husband, in-laws i.e. the present applicants and the lady with whom, the husband of the complainant had alleged illicit relations. It is this FIR which is sought to be quashed in this application.

3. At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the applicant no.1-accused no.2, who is father-in-law of the complainant has expired and the application is abated qua applicant no.1. So, now, the application is required to be considered for applicant no.2 who is accused no.3 and mother-in-law of the respondent no.2-complainant.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that there is no serious allegation against the present applicant from the entire FIR which remotely connects the present applicant with the offence. The allegations, substantially, are against accused no.1 and accused no.4. The present applicant is wrongly dragged in litigation by making some general allegation against her. She has also submitted that considering the age of the present applicant who was 80 years at the time of filing of this application and considering the fact that she is lady accused, continuing with such criminal proceedings which may cause great harassment to her, that too, after death of her husband i.e. accused no.2. She further stated that even from the papers of the chargesheet, no material which directly connects the present applicant in commission of alleged offence is found and therefore she prays to allow this application and quash the impugned FIR qua the present applicant, as it is nothing but abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-complainant has strongly opposed the prayers made in the present application by saying that the complaint is filed in the year 2003 and in the year 2004, the present applicant has preferred application for quashing which was dismissed by this Court. On perusal of such order, this Court found on 24.6.2004, this Court has passed the order in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1486 of 2004 whereby the application was dismissed for want of prosecution but it was not decided on merits.

5.1 Learned advocate for the complainant has also drawn my attention towards the affidavit-in-reply filed by the complainant and submitted that serious offences are made out against the present applicant even by filing separate FIR filed under Section 465, 460, 471 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code before the CID Crime Ahmedabad and therefore also considering the averments made in the impugned FIR, there is direct involvement of the present applicant found and therefore this Court should not exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code. Moreover, she has submitted that now the trial is also commenced and therefore this Court should not exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code.

5.2 Learned APP has also opposed this application as now the trial is already commenced and prima facie specific allegation is made in the FIR which is supported by filing of the chargeshee