JUDGMENT

1. The present application has been filed seeking the quashment of the First Information Report lodged at the Mahila Police Station, Bhavnagar, recorded as II C.R. No. 5 of 2013, under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, against four accused persons, including the present applicant. The applicant is the sister-in-law of the first informant and was residing in Uganda at the relevant time.

2. The allegations in the complaint state that Respondent No. 2 married the applicant’s brother on 10.12.2010. It is contended that immediately following the marriage, all the accused, including the applicant, allegedly taunted the complainant on the ground of inadequate dowry. The complaint further alleges that the husband, at the instigation of the accused, physically assaulted the complainant, and while they were in Uganda, she was compelled to perform work or leave the country. As a result of such harassment, Respondent No. 2 returned to India and attempted to reconcile with her husband. When reconciliation failed, the present complaint was filed, implicating the applicant, the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Ronak Rawal for the State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that the applicant was married and residing with her family, including a daughter, in Uganda prior to the marriage of Respondent No. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that Respondent No. 2 returned to India because she found the living conditions in Uganda unsuitable and developed health issues. It is further submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in the FIR merely to exert pressure on her brother. Given that the applicant is married, residing separately, and has her own family, the learned advocate requests that the FIR constitutes an abuse of the process of law and merits quashment..

5. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Rawal submits that the complainant currently resides in New Jersey, United States of America, and despite repeated efforts, her statement could not be recorded. Learned APP Mr. Rawal further submits that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences and, therefore, the application for quashment should be dismissed, allowing the investigation to proceed.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the averments in the FIR, it appears that the dispute primarily concerns the husband and wife. The present applicant, who is a married woman with her own family, appears to have been implicated in the FIR to exert pressure on her brother. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [ Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to