IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the requirement of prima facie evidence to constitute an offence and cautioned against interference when the facts prima facie constitute an offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed for quash of the FIR No.11191030200033 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 323, 294(b), 506 (2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with Mahila Police Station, West, Ahmedabad, against the petitioners.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr.Hriday Buch, learned counsel for the second respondent-defacto complainant.

3. The facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:-

3.1 The petitioners herein are sister-in-law and parents in-law of the defacto complainant respectively. They are accused nos.2 to 4 in the crime. Accused no.1 is the husband of the defacto complainant. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2002. It is stated in the FIR lodged by the defacto complainant alleging that she brought 50 tolas of gold to the house of her parents in-law after the marriage and, thereafter, her husband and the parents in-law started harassing her demanding additional dowry of Rs.50 Lacs and used to abuse her and beat her. It is further stated that accused no.2, sisterin- law, who has been residing in US has been insisting accused no.1, who is her brother to give divorce to the defacto complainant and to come to US and marry another woman in US. It is also stated that gold that was brought by the defacto complainant was kept in the joint locker of the defacto complainant and her mother-in-law and she found the said gold in the locker missing and the same was misappropriated by the accused, which is her “stree dhan”. The said report that was lodged by the defacto complainant was registered as FIR for the aforesaid offences.

3.2 Accused no.1, who is the husband did not file any application for quash of the FIR registered against him. It is only accused nos.2 to 4, who are sister-in-law and parents inlaw of the defacto complainant filed this petition.

3.3 The accused no.2, who is the sister-in-law, sought quash of the FIR on the ground that she has been residing in US with her husband and her marriage was solemnized long back, even before the marriage of the defacto complainant and accused no.1, and since then she has been residing in US and she has been falsely roped into this case and has been falsely implicated in this case to harass her. The quashment of the FIR against her was also sought on the ground that there are no allegations made against her in the FIR regarding any demand of dowry or consequential harassment and as such the allegations in the FIR do not constitute any offence against her.

3.4 As regards accused nos.3 and 4, who are the parents inlaw are concerned, it is contended that vague allegations are made against them and they are old parents of accused no.1 and they are falsely implicated in this case and they are being harassed. The quashment of the FIR against them was also sought on the ground that as per the settlement arrived at by accused no.1 and his father in writing on 14.7.2020, that they are living separately from her parents in-law and yet they are falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, on the said grounds, the petitioners sought quash of the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above submissions would also contend that the husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the defacto complainant on 24.7.2020 and, thereafter, on 31.7.2020, present FIR was registered as a counter-blast to the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights, which clearly indicates that a false case was foisted against them. Therefore, she has prayed for quash of the FIR. In support of her submissions, she has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083.

5. Per contra, learned APP submits that prima