The court upheld that prima facie allegations in the FIR warranted continuation of proceedings, as quashing should only occur in clear abuse of process or lack of evidence.

ORDER :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the FIR being C.R.No.I - 25 of 2019 registered with Mahila Police Station, Surat against the petitioner for the offences punishable under the sections 498(A), 323, 504, 114 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act qua the petitioner.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mansuri for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms.Joshi for respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr.Joshi for respondent – State.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is mother in law of the complainant. Taking to the FIR learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that general allegations are made against the petitioner and no such ingredients of the alleged offence is attracted if the FIR is read at its face value. It is submitted that allegations made against the petitioner is false and frivolous. It is further submitted that there is delay in filing FIR. It is submitted that allegations are made against the petitioner without any evidence on record. It is submitted that petitioner and her family members have treated the first informant as her daughter and had celebrated expected arrival of baby girl by hosting baby shower. It is submitted that respondent no.2 and husband entered into separation agreement for dissolution of marriage and it was reduced in writing by way of contract, wherein, it was decided that applicant will pay $ 500 (Rs.34,4000/- appx.) per month to respondent no.2 apart from one time payment of Rs.7 lakhs.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Mansuri for the petitioner further submitted that after receiving alimony every month, first informant stated that said contract was executed forcefully. It is submitted that upon return to USA in December, 2018, the first informant started quarrel with her husband and threatened him that she will fly back to India with baby girl and will not see her daughter. It is submitted that at no point of time, respondent no.2 was subjected to any cruelty by petitioner who is mother. It is also submitted that petitioner never demanded any dowry from respondent no.2.

3.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that if the FIR is read as it is no such ingredients of the alleged offence is found prima facie to have been attracted qua the petitioner and therefore by making above submissions, he would submit to allow this petition and to quash the FIR. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Patel Chetankumar Bharatkumar v/s. State of Gujarat [2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 250078]

4. Learned advocate Ms.Joshi for the respondent no.2 submits that petitioner who is mother in law of complainant since beginning used to harass the complainant to bring dowry and was subjected to cruelty. It is submitted that there is no settlement between the parties. It is submitted that false statement was made that consensual divorce was in process before this Court and on such statement, this Hon’ble Court has protected the petitioner at the admission stage of petition. It is also submitted that petitioner was inciting husband of the complainant and therefore, let trial to conduct against the petitioner to test veracity of the allegations. It is submitted that divorce deed was executed between the parties (Annexure D) and as per divorce deed, the husband of the complainant was required to transfer amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to complainant as deposit till girl baby attained age of majority and every month 500$ as also to be deposited / transferred as maint