The judgment establishes the principle that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is designed to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings and to ensure that they do not become instruments of harassment.

ORDER :

1. By way of this application, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the original accused no. 4 Dipalben Jagirkumar Patel seeks to invoke inherent powers of this Court, praying quashing of FIR being I-CR. No. 11191022220649 of 2022 registered with Ishanpur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 294B, 106(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. C.B. Dastoor, Manish Patel and Ms. Chetna Shah, learned State Counsel for the respective parties.

3. The private respondent Krishna Nilesh Patel has lodged a criminal complaint for the offence of cruelty and dowry demand. The marriage was solemnized on 18.01.2022 at village Borsad, Dist.: Anand. The husband Nilesh Patel and his parents as well as the applicant – sister are permanent resident of Canada and for the marriage purpose, the husband and his parents came to India in the month of January, 2022. The applicant being a sister-in-law and resident of Canada, could not attended the marriage and in her absence, marriage was solemnized. During four months of the marriage span, the matrimonial dispute cropped up in relation to the VISA for Canada. According to case of private respondent complainant, the husband and in-laws used to demand Rs.20,00,000/- for VISA expenses as well as for getting permanent residence of Canada. The applicant herein along with her husband came to India in the month of February, 2022 for social purpose and their stay was extended upto August, 2022. The issue of VISA and permanent residence of Canada was become serious and on that ground, the respondent wife left the matrimonial home. In the FIR, she alleges that the husband and his parents harassed her and asked to bring Rs.20,00,000/- from her father and considering the economic situation of the parents, she could not manage the said amount. So far, role of present applicant – sister-in-law is concerned, it is alleged that when she was in India, she abated the principal accused in relation to demand of dowry.

4. In the aforesaid facts, the applicant herein has preferred present application for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

5. Mr. C.B. Dastoor, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that, the FIR is absolutely false and frivolous and on reading of it, the offence of cruelty is clearly not made out. He would further submits that the applicant was not part of the marriage ceremony and when she came to India for religious purpose, she has been roped without their being any specific allegation of harassment and therefore by disclosing the exaggerated version of the incident, the applicant with malafide intention and mounting pressurize on her, she has been falsely implicated in the offence and therefore, where the plain reading of the FIR do not disclose commission of the offence, the court in its inherent powers may exercise its discretion to quash the criminal proceedings, which has been filed by misusing the process of law and court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Manish Patel and State Counsel opposed the quashing of the proceedings and contended that, the after short span of the marriage, the husband left the India and thereafter, neglected the wife as he and his family failed to manage for VISA for the Canada. They further submitted that the FIR prima-facie reveals the commission of cruelty. The husband and his relatives has demanded Rs.20,00,000/- for VISA process, which itself shows that she was harassed to meet unlawful demand. They further submitted that the applicant herein has abated the principal accused in demanding the cash amount and therefore, considering the role of the present applicant herein, prima-facie case for the offence is made out and in that view of the matter, considering the settled principles of quashing, the court should not exercise its jurisdiction.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusa