JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I- CR No.52 of 2012 registered with Maherav Police Station, District Anand and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. .

2. Brief facts of the case are that Accused No. 1 married Respondent No. 2 on 24.04.2004, and two sons were born out of the wedlock in the years 2005 and 2007. Initially, the matrimonial life was cordial. In March 2007, the brother of Respondent No. 2, Mr. Mihirbhai Hasmukhbhai Barot, sought financial assistance for his business, pursuant to which Accused No. 1 advanced a loan of ₹20 lakhs, repayable within one year. Upon failure to repay, an agreement was executed laying down the terms of repayment, which was attested by Respondent No. 2, and nine cheques amounting to ₹20 lakhs were issued; however, the same remain unencashed. A subsequent agreement dated 16.05.2011 was also executed revising the repayment terms. The dispute arose when the brother of Respondent No. 2 failed to repay the loan and Accused No. 1 demanded the amount, which allegedly led Respondent No. 2 to initiate multiple proceedings as a counterblast, including proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC (Criminal Misc. Application No. 4 of 2012), a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22, and thereafter lodging the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-52 of 2012 with Mehrav Police Station, Anand, for offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 114 of the IPC, with a view to pressurize the accused persons.

3. Learned Advocate Ms. Tejal Vashi for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. It is submitted that earlier, an offence under Section 498A of the IPC was registered, which has already been quashed by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that in Criminal Case No. 336 of 2017, arising out of similar allegations, the accused came to be acquitted. It is contended that the present proceedings have been initiated only with ulterior motives and are nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is further submitted that Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are residing separately, and Applicant No. 2, being the uncle- in-law, has no direct nexus or involvement in the alleged offence. Learned Advocate has further submitted that the applicants cannot be fastened with any liability to pay maintenance, and even otherwise, no case is made out for grant of such relief against them.

3.2 It is further submitted that the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act has been filed belatedly and only after initiation of proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC and earlier proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC, clearly indicating mala fide intention on the part of the complainant. It is contended that no offence, much less any offence under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, is made out against the present applicants. It is further submitted that the proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC were also initiated after a delay of approximately 8.5 months. It is contended that the allegations made in the present complaint are contradictory to the earlier version put forth by the complainant. Learned Advocate has further submitted that the complaint has been filed without any justification and only with a view to exert pressure upon the accused persons.

3.3 It is specifically contended that there exists a financial transaction between Applicant No. 1 and the brother of the complainant, and the present proceedings have been initiated with a view to pressurize the applicants, particularly to prevent Applicant No. 1 from recovering the said amount. It is further submitted that the complainant is attempting to obstruct the execution of the agreement and confession placed on record at