Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
ASHISHBHAI BANSILAL (BASUDIWALA) MODI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2357 of 2020
Decided On : 02-01-2024
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - 323, 324, 285, 506(2) IPC - The court quashed the impugned FIR filed under Sections 323, 324, 285, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, as the allegations did not constitute an offense against the present applicant and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused, including the present applicant, were involved in a dispute regarding a house, and the accused physically assaulted the complainant. The present applicant was alleged to have advised the co-accused over the phone, but was not present at the scene of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not constitute an offense against the present applicant, as he was not present at the place of the incident and his alleged involvement was limited to a phone call. The court also noted that a prior FIR had been filed by the co-accused against the complainant, indicating a potential motive to implicate every near relative.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offense against the present applicant and whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604, and held that the allegations in the FIR did not prima facie constitute an offense against the present applicant. The court also considered the potential abuse of process of law and the absence of any fruitful purpose in continuing the proceedings against the applicant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the impugned FIR filed against the present applicant, as well as any subsequent proceedings arising from the same FIR. The court emphasized that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta.
ORDER :
1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) praying for the following reliefs:
(B) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this Criminal Misc. Application by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR filed by Respondent No. 2 being FIR No. 11195004200011 Registered before Deesa (South) Police Station, District Banaskantha in the interest of justice.
(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant stay as to further investigation of FIR filed by Respondent No. 2 being FIR No. 11195004200011 Registered before Deesa (South) Police Station, District Banaskantha in the interest of justice.
(D) xxxx”
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this application, as stated in the application, are such that the impugned FIR is filed stating that the complainant was present at her residence and that the house is on the name of her father-in-law Ishwarlal and that father-in-law, her father and herself is staying at ground floor; that her sister-in-law Dhartiben, her husband Dineshbhai is staying at upper floor; that her husband is residing at Vedant society in Deesa; that the complainant and the accused had some dispute regarding the house from quite some time and in that regard, the complainant had given a complaint in the police station also; that at around 3.30 p.m. when the complainant was sleeping, after a while sister-in-law of the complainant i.e. Dhartiben was talking to the present petitioner i.e. Ashwinbhai Bansilal Modi residing at Patan and on the phone she was conveying to Ashishbhai that today she is going to kill the complainant; that after this conversation, the accused no. 1 went at the back gate of the house and was locking down the front gatel that the complainant got out of the house and during that time, Dhartiben, accused no. 1 came with wooden stick in her hand and injury was caused on left hand of the complainant and thereafter the complainant with stone and also injured the finger of the complainant; that thereafter the accused no. 1 went in bathroom and brought kerosene with her and that kerosene was poured on the complainant and the complainant started shouting and nearby people gathered around; that thereafter Dhartiben again called Ashishbhai and locked the front gate; that thereafter the complainant called her husband Yogeshkumar and her husband informed the relatives namely Hansaben Vasantkumar Popatiya, Premilaben Bachubhai Bharatiya and Induben Laxmichand Kanudawala, who came and tried to resolve the issue, but the main gate was locked and they could not enter; that the complainant tried to snatch away the key from Dhartiben and at that time, the accused no. 1 bit the complainant on her right hand and also gave kick and fist blows to the complainant; that the husband of the complainant called police and therefore the police came and opened the main door which was locked and took Dhartiben to the police station and when the complaint of Dhartiben was noted down, at that time, the complainant was at Deesa government hospital for her treatment and the complainant is giving the present FIR after taking primary treatment from government hospital. It is this FIR which is prayed to be quashed qua the present applicant by filing this application.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anuraj Rathore for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for respondent no. 1-state. Though rule is served, none appears for respondent no. 2.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Rathore for the applicant has drawn my attention towards two FIRs-one filed by Dhartiben who is accused no. 1 in the present FIR against Ishwarbhai Modi and other where the complainant is Shivaniben who is also shown as accused. The impugned complaint is filed under the provisions of Sections 323, 324, 285 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code on the same day as
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings if the allegations in the FIR do not....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Matrimonial cruelty – Court must guard against false implication of in-laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for careful scrutiny of complaints in matrimonial cases and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal P....
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 ....
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases, and a prima facie case must be established for the charges to be framed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
