1. Leave to amend the prayer clause.
2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), the applicants - original accused seek quashing of the first information report registered vide Vapi Town Police Station I – C. R. No.193/2010 as well as the charge-sheet submitted pursuant thereto, which has been registered as Criminal Case No.236 of 2011 and is pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vapi.
3. The respondent No.2 herein lodged the above referred first information report alleging that she is residing at Vapi and is a house-wife and that her husband is not coming home since the last eight months. It is further alleged that her marriage took place in accordance with Muslim rites on 12.6.2004 with Ijaj Ahmed Jumman Hakim Ulla Shah, and that she has two children out of the said wedlock. Since last one year, her husband, her mother in-law Zahida, her father in-law Jumman, her brother in- law Azad, her sister in-law Rehana Sarfuddin and her sister in- law (Nanand) Farhana Siraj, have together meted out physical and mental harassment to her. It is further alleged that all the other accused have been instigating her husband to demand Rs.2 lakhs by way of dowry from the father of the first informant and that because of the instigation, her husband was telling her that as long as she did not bring the said money, he would not keep her with him. It is further alleged that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law as well as her husband have threatened to cut her into pieces and flush her in the toilet. That she had informed her parents and her brothers that her in-laws, namely, her husband, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law have threatened her that if she does not give them money, they will kill her and are mentally harassing her. It is in these circumstances that she has lodged the present first information report.
4. Pursuant to the investigation carried out in relation to the aforesaid first information report, the police have submitted a charge-sheet and the case has been registered as Criminal Case No.236 of 2011 and is pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vapi.
5. Mr. Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that on a plain reading of the first information report, it is apparent that since the last eight months, the first informant is not residing with any of the applicants. It was further submitted that the first information report has been filed with an ulterior motive to mentally harass the present applicants and that on an earlier occasion, the first informant had lodged a complaint with the GIDC Police Station, at Vapi under section 498-A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1298 of 2006. That during the pendency of the trial, there was a compromise between the parties and after recording the evidence, a judgment of acquittal came to be passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 16.2.2008. It was submitted that subsequently, the present first information report has been lodged by the first informant which is an abuse of the process of court. Referring to the allegations made in the first information report, it was submitted that only general allegations have been made with a view to pressurize the husband who was not residing with her. It was submitted that all the other members of the husband's family have been unnecessarily roped in with a view to mentally harass them and that though the sister-in-law of the complainant is residing at Mumbai with her husband, her name has also been included in the array of accused. It was submitted that under the circumstances, the complaint has been filed with oblique motive of harassing the applicants herein out of personal grudge, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside along with all proceedings taken pursuant thereto. In support of his submissions the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 and in the case of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, AIR 2010 SC 3363.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – first informant invited attention to the averments made in the affidavit in- reply filed by the respondent No.2, to submit that during the course of the trial in relation to the earlier complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, a compromise had taken place pursuant to which, an order of acquittal came to be passed. However, after taking benefit of the compromise, the applicants have not abided by the same and they have again meted out harassment to the respondent No.2 and were neglecting their responsibility and have ill-treated her. It was submitted that the applicants herein had conspired and instigated her husband, the applicant No.1, to leave the house and upon request being made by the respondent No.2, the applicants had threatened her with dire consequences for non-compliance with their demand of Rs.2 lakhs by way of dowry. It was urged that it was on the instigation of the co-accused that the applicant No.1 – husband was mentally and physically harassing the first informant and that on the allegations made in the first information report, it is apparent that the offence as alleged is made out. It was submitted that the fact that the police have submitted a charge-sheet at the culmination of investigation is indicative of the fact that there is substance in the allegations made by the first informant and as such, at this belated stage, after the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been submitted, there is no warrant for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code and that the applicants should be relegated to the alternative remedy of seeking discharge before the trial court.
7. As noticed hereinabove, the allegations made in the first information report are to the effect that the husband of the first informant, namely, applicant No.1 has not been residing with her since last eight months. Vague and general allegations have been made against all the other co-accused to the effect that they are instigating the husband to demand Rs.2 lakhs from her by way of dowry and that her husband on their instigation is telling her that till she brings such money, he is not going to keep her. The other allegation is to the effect that all the accused have threatened to cut her into pieces and flush her into toilet and as such, have threatened to kill her.
8. Since the charge-sheet has already been filed, the papers submitted with the charge-sheet are also annexed along with the present application which contains statements of two persons, namely first informant’s mother and father. From the statements of the parents of the first informant, it is apparent that even according to them, the first informant and the applicant No.1 were residing separately. It is further alleged by them that their son in-law is not doing any work and that he has been asking their daughter for money and was beating her due to which, their daughter has lodged the complaint. From the statements recorded by the police as well as from the averments made in the first information report, it is apparent that only vague and general allegations with regard to the harassment have been made.
9. From the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, it is apparent that earlier, the respondent No.2 – first informant had lodged a complaint against the applicants herein which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1298 of 2006. The said criminal case was sought to be disposed of on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them. However, in the light of the fact that the offence alleged was under section 498-A of the IPC, which was not compoundable under section 320 of the Code, the Court had not accepted the request for settling the matter and had decided the case on merits. However, it appears that on account of the settlement that was arrived at between the parties, the first informant and her witnesses did not lead any incriminating evidence so as to implicate the accused. The applicants herein, accordingly, came to be acquitted of the offences alleged. Thereafter, the present first information report has been lodged making the allegations as noted hereinabove.
10. From the allegations made in the complaint, it is apparent that the complainant has been residing with her children alone and that the accused No.1 – husband was not residing with her for the last eight months. A perusal of the statements of the mother and father of the first informant recorded by the police makes it apparent that the first informant was residing separately with her husband. According to the statements of the father and mother of the first informant, the first informant along with her husband were residing at Vapi Kabrastan Road in a room which was taken on rent. However, the accused No.1 was not employed and was demanding money from their daughter and was physically and mentally harassing her in respect of which, their daughter has lodged the complaint. Thus, it is apparent that the first information report has been basically lodged in respect of the harassment meted out by the accused No.1 to the first informant. However, the first informant has while lodging the above referred first information report, roped in all other members of the family. On a perusal of the allegations made in the first information report, it is apparent that there is nothing to directly implicate the remaining accused in the offence in question. The Supreme Court in the case of Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another (supra) has held that it is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including the Supreme Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. The court has further observed that it is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. That the Court has to come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. It has been further observed that at the time of filing of the complaint, the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
11. The facts of the present case are required to be examined in the background of the above legal principles set out by the Supreme Court. As noticed earlier, insofar as the applicants No.2 to 6 are concerned, they were not residing with the first informant at the relevant time when the offence is alleged to have been committed. Besides, the allegations made in the first information report are vague and general in nature and as such, this court is of the view that no offence under section 498-A IPC can be stated to have been made out qua the applicants No.2 to 6. It may be noted that the applicant No.5 is residing at Bhinwadi in the State of Maharashtra and the applicants No.2, 3 and 4 are residing separately from the applicant No.1. The applicant No.6 is also residing separately in village Chhavada and not at Vapi. Under the circumstances, this is a fit case for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code qua the said applicants.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds qua the applicants No.2 to 6 herein. Accordingly, the first information report registered vide Vapi Town Police Station I – C. R. No.193/2010 as well as Criminal Case No.236 of 2011 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vapi are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants No.2 to 6 herein. However, the said case will proceed further qua the applicant No.1 herein – Azad Ahmed Jumman Shah. Rule is made absolute accordingly, to the aforesaid extent.
Direct Service is permitted.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*