IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings should be sparingly and cautiously done to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.

ORDER :

1. By invoking inherent power of this Court, the applicant-original accused Manubhai Nagrecha, has preferred this quashing petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in relation to the FIR being C.R. No. 11210004201615 of 2020 registered with Amroli Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. This Court has heard learned Counsel Mr. Punam Gadhvi appearing for and on behalf of the applicant. Despite of notice of service of rule, the second respondent wife, who has lodged the FIR, has chosen not to contest the present application and remained absent throughout the proceedings.

3. The brief facts giving rise to file the present application are that the marriage of the second respondent Ms. Mittal Dipesh Nagrecha was solemnized on 4.12.2016 with accused No.5 Dipesh Manubhai. She has lodged the aforesaid FIR impleading therein in all 5 persons, inter alia, alleging that after her marriage, when she went to matrimonial home, she was subjected to harassment by the husband and his relatives. The applicant herein is father-in-law. In the FIR, it is alleged that on the second day of the marriage, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law started harassing her on the issue of insufficient dowry and treated her as a maid and the said harassment was continued for about 3 months and thereafter, she went to her parental home and stayed there about 6 months as the husband and in- laws were not interested to take her back. She filed a complaint with the Surat Police Station. Due to compromise, she again went to matrimonial home and after birth of male-child, she was again tortured and harassed by the in-laws and on the petty issues, the dispute arose, as a result, the husband used to beat her. In order to resolve the dispute, the husband-wife have decided to live separately and on the birthday of her son, the in-laws came to her house where again the dispute arose, as a result, she constrained to live the house and since last 4 months, she is living at her parental house. So far as applicant father-in-law is concerned, it is alleged that he aided and abetted the husband in commission of the alleged offence of cruelty.

4. The applicant has preferred this quashing petition, inter alia, stating that he has been falsely impleaded as an accused without there being any cause and as such by making general and vague allegations, the FIR has been filed with malafide and ulterior motive, which is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and Court.

5. Mr. Punam Gadhvi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant father-in-law has nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute of husband and wife and to built a pressure for amicable settlement, criminal machinery is being put into motion, with malafide intention and, therefore, the allegations and averments made in the FIR, accepted as it is, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged and, therefore, the impugned FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process and the same deserves to be quashed.

6. As observed, the second respondent wife, despite of service remained absent throughout the proceedings.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jay Mehta by opposing the application, has contended that, the allegations qua the applicant, disclose the commission of the offence and, therefore, the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint, cannot be gone into at this stage.

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 Cou