IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that allegations must satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses, and contradictory statements and subsequent events can influence the decision to quash an FIR.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) praying to quash and set aside the FIR being I­C.R.No.55 of 2014 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad.

2. This matter was heard on 17.11.2014 and the notice was issued, permitting the investigation to carry out and directions for no coercive steps were ordered. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.09.2015 this Court has observed that “the learned advocate Mr.Devesh Bhatt appearing for the respondent No.2 is not remaining present since long and therefore, the Rule issued and investigation permitted to proceed further.” Vide order dated 04.12.2015 the draft amendment was allowed and the Criminal Case No.337 of 2015 was stayed till the final disposal of this application.

3. On 14.07.2023 the learned APP was directed to record the statement informing to the complainant with regard to the pendency of the petition as the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 remained absent constantly. Though the statement was recorded, but the respondent No.2­complainant did not choose to appear therefore, again the notice was issued on 29.09.2023 which was served to the respondents­complainant. On 18.09.2023 the statement of the respondent­complainant was recorded that the complainant does not want to engage an advocate. Therefore, present application was heard on merits in absence of complainant.

4. This application is filed by the applicants, who are the husband, mother­in­law, father­ in­law, brother­in­law and sister­in­law praying to quash and set aside the FIR, which is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Facts narrated in the FIR are stated herein below:

5.1. It is alleged in the FIR that marriage of the respondent No.2 was solemnized with the applicant No.1 on 29.11.2009 according to the rites and rituals of the community. The respondent­complainant was staying with the husband and her in­laws at her matrimonial house. The respondent No.2 wanted to get her marriage registered, but as per the allegations made in the FIR, applicant Nos.1 to 3 did not take any step in that direction. It was alleged further that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were taunting to the complainant with regard to her educational qualification.

5.2. It is averred in the complaint that though the respondent No.2 is well educated, still, the applicants were commenting about her educational qualification and were torturing physically as well as mentally. It is further alleged in the complaint that to get her further educated and to get the Government job, complainant was sent back to her parental house to complete the studies of B.Ed. and M.A. It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant No.1­ husband is visiting the house of the complainant’s parents and maintaining the physical relations with the complainant­ wife.

5.3. The complainant had insisted to register the marriage and informed that only thereafter the complainant would fulfill the conjugal rights of the marriage with the applicant No.1. It is alleged that the applicant No.1 did not register the marriage and force to have physical relation to the respondent­complainant. On disclosing this fact to the parents and brother of the respondent No.2, they asked the applicant No.1 to get the marriage registered and informed that thereafter only they would send the respondent No.2 on the matrimonial house. Because of this incident, the applicant No.1 has stopped visiting the house of the complainant’s parents and disconnect the contact with the respondent No.2.

5.4. It is further alleged that on 08.02.2014 on Non­Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.100 the deed of divorce was prepared and the applicant No.1 signed in the presence of ten witnesses and it was sent to the complainant and according to the complainant, she refused to sign and file a complaint before the Mahila Police Station at Ahmedabad being I­C.R.No.54 of 2014 which is impugned