IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need to carefully consider the allegations and evidence in matrimonial disputes and warned against proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

ORDER :

1. Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying therein that, the FIR being CR. No. 11216008220027 of 2022 registered with Sector 7 Gandhinagar Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. This Court has heard Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, learned advocate for Mr. Pratik Barot and State Counsel Mr. Jay Mehta. When the matter is called out, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 did not remain present to assist the Court.

3. Brief facts giving rise to file present application are that, the applicants are relatives and in-laws of the husband Amit Kundaliya, whose marriage with the second respondent was solemnized on 29.04.2016. The second respondent wife has lodged the criminal proceedings against the applicants, inter-alia, alleging against them that she was subjected to cruelty by the applicants. In the FIR, it is alleged that, after the marriage, she lived one year at her parental home and used to come at her matrimonial home at Ahmedabad. The husband was serving at Mumbai, as a result, after her pregnancy, she again went to her parental home for delivery. After the delivery of a daughter, when she came at her matrimonial home, the dispute arose on petty issue of household works and she was harassed by mother-in-law and father- in-law and hurled abusive by them. On delivering the female child, the in-laws do not like it, as they want a son and on this issue, she was mentally harassed by the in-laws. On the issue of dowry, it is alleged that, the applicants asked her to bring the cash amount from her father, as after his retirement, he got retiral benefits of substantial amount. The dispute was compromised and thereafter she went to Mumbai to reside with her husband and stayed there for about 3 months and again came to matrimonial home at Ahmedabad, where she was tortured mentally and physically. It is alleged that on 17.11.2021, in the presence of her brother, the scuffle took place between the husband and her brother. So far as sister-in-law and her husbands are concerned, it is alleged that, as and when they took visit at the matrimonial home, they always provoked the husband and other family members on the issue of cruelty and demand of dowry.

4. Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that, the entire family members have been falsely roped into the offence without their being any justifiable reason on the issue of cruelty and demand of dowry. The allegations are completely vague and general and without any specific instances with the precision of the events, the applicants who have nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute of husband and wife, have been falsely impleaded with oblique and ulterior motive and therefore, considering the intention of the wife, the initiation of the proceedings is nothing but a sheer harassment to the applicants and it would amount to abuse of process of law and court.

5. Mr. Dhaval Trivedi, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances has submitted that, the allegations accepted as it is to be true, do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence and therefore, considering the parameters of Supreme Court decisions in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 and others, the FIR and consequential proceedings thereto may be quashed.

6. 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