The judgment emphasizes the need to prevent the misuse of legal provisions, particularly in matrimonial disputes, and highlights the importance of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not abused.

ORDER :

1. By this application, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. original accused no. 2-Swapnil Macwan seeks to invoke inherent powers of this Court praying quashing of the FIR, being I - C.R. No. 11215018210040 of 2021, registered with Mahila Police Station, Anand for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file quashing petition are that the private respondent-wife married with one Vinod Macwan accused no. 1 and after the marriage, she went to matrimonial home. This was the second marriage of the respondent. The accused no. 1-husband being a government servant was staying at Porbandar and every fortnight, he was used to come at Anand. The respondent wife was not happy with the conduct and attitude of the husband as she doubted on his character as a result, the matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. In these background facts, the respondent wife lodged an FIR against five persons including the husband and his relatives inter-alia alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. The applicant herein is the nephew of accused husband. So far role attributed to the applicant is concerned, it is alleged that he along with his brother, by using filthy language, threatened her and pressurized her to leave the house.

3. This Court has heard learned counsels Mr. Shashikant Parmar, Mr. Romesh Niven and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the FIR is absolutely false and frivolous and on reading of it, the offence of cruelty and causing voluntary hurt is not made out. That on 25.10.2021, the applicant had left Anand for London (U.K.) as for further study at London, he got student Visa and thus, therefore, on the day of alleged offence, the applicant was not present in Anand Town and in support of these contentions, he relied on the Visa and passport to establish the plea of alibi at the time of commission of the offence.

5. In the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel Mr. Parmar has submitted that the FIR lacks the ingredients of the offence and considering the nature of allegations, the facts mentioned in the FIR qua the applicant are absurd and inherently improbable.

6. In such circumstances, relying on the parameters for quashing laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhajanlal, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335, it is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence against the applicant and therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the powers of this Court.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Romesh Niven, learned counsel and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP have jointly submitted that the contention with regard to the presence of the applicant at the place of offence and supporting evidence like passport, etc. produced cannot be examined at this stage as the Court should not enter into disputed questions of facts and examine the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR and thus, therefore, they submitted that the powers should not be exercised.

8. The scope and power of the High Court to quash the first information report is well settled. The power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima-facie decision, unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations, as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, only then, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

9. The Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines that must be adhered to while exercising inherent powers under Sectio