ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Vicky Mehta appearing for learned Advocate Ms.P.J. Joshi on behalf of the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No.4549 of 2014 and appearing for learned Advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta on behalf of the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No.13198 of 2011, learned APP Mr.J.K. Shah for the respondent State and learned Advocate Dr. Balram Jain appearing for the respondent No.2 – original complainant.

Order in Criminal Misc. Application No.13198 of 2011 :-

2. Criminal Misc. Application No.13198 of 2011 impugns an FIR being C.R. No.I-224/2011 registered at Chandkheda Police Station, District Ahmedabad by the respondent no.2 – original complainant on 9.9.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The complainant is the daughter-in-law of the applicants No.1 and 2 and sister-in-law of the applicant No.3 and the applicant No.4 is the husband of applicant No.3. It is pertinent to mention that the husband of the complainant – the original accused No.1 is not before this Court in the present application.

4. The allegations levelled in the FIR being that the husband of the complainant and the complainant were studying together and whereas, they had a love-affair pursuant to which in presence of the applicants herein they had got married on 31.7.2008 and whereas it is alleged that for a few years, the complainant had been treated properly by the applicants and her late mother-in-law and after the demise of her late mother-in-law, the applicants herein started creating problems for the complainant, more particularly on account of the caste of the complainant. It appears that the complainant had left the matrimonial house approximately a year before filing of the impugned FIR and whereas the allegations being that while she was working in a private firm, the applicants herein would stop the complainant on her way to the office and would abuse her, more particularly with relation to the caste of the complainant. It is further alleged that on 2.4.2011 the complainant and her husband had gone to live with her in-laws and whereas even at that time, the complainant and her husband were thrown out of the house belonging to the applicant No.2 herein, which led to the filing of the impugned FIR.

5. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for the applicants would submit that as such the applicants No.3 and 4 being the married sister-in-law and her husband are living separately and they do not have any role to play, even if the allegations are believed to be true, yet the applicants No.3 and 4 have been arraigned just to pressurize the other accused. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta would submit that this a clear case of over-

implication so far as the applicants No.3 and 4 are concerned.

6. Mr.Mehta would submit that insofar as the allegations under the Atrocities Act are concerned, the said allegations do not appear to be believable, more particularly according to Mr.Mehta, if the applicants herein had any problem with regard to the caste of the complainant, then they would have objected to the marriage itself and whereas the complainant herself had stated in the complaint that the applicants were present at the time of marriage and whereas the complainant has also stated that she was treated properly by the applicants for a few years after marriage. Learned Advocate Mr.Mehta would submit that under such circumstances, the allegations levelled under the Atrocities Act clearly appears to be a case of abuse of the process of law. Mr.Mehta would further submit that as such the dispute is between the husband of the complainant and the complainant herself and whereas even the applicants herein, more particularly applicant No.1 herein, who happens to be the father-in-law of the complainant is also not in good terms with his son i.e. the husband of the complainant. Mr.Mehta would draw the attention