Monday, March 2, 2015

Married sis in law living separate runs for 498a quash!

 

Women of India are greatly affected by false and frivolous 498a. Mothers and sisters of men are prime targets. 10s of 1000s of them are languishing in Jails. There is an entire block for them in 'Tihar' where they are spending their golden years in penal incarceration. As mentioned by the Apex court, Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State U.P. reported in 2013 AIR SC 181, it has become a fashion to rope in multiple members of husband's family into such cases!!

 

in this case

* 'wife' files a 498a on her sister in law who is NOT EVEN living in the same roof (sis in law is married and living in her husband's house at Vadodara while wife is in Ahmedabad !!)

* sis in law who is living seperately runs for quash

* 'wife' appears and OPPOSES quash !!

* the Hon HC appreciates the facts, concludes that the 498a against the sis in law is false and quashes the case

The Hon. HC says :

".....It is an admitted position that the present applicant is residing with her husband and her in­laws at Vadodara and no specific allegation has been made against the present applicant......"

".... Considering the overall facts and circumstances .... and also the statements of the witnesses as well as the chargesheet has been filed qua the other accused persons and the allegations made in the FIR, no offence has been made out against the present applicant, who is married and residing at her matrimonial home at Vadodara, ...."

 

*****************************disclaimer**********************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION

(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 17150 of 2014

****************************************************************

SHREYABEN SUNILKUMAR SAMANI....Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)

****************************************************************

Appearance:

MR DEVANG J JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR KRUNAL L SHAHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR LB DABHI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

http://evinayak.tumblr.com http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

****************************************************************

 

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

 

Date : 26/02/2015

 

ORAL ORDER

 

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the present applicant accused, who happens to be married sister­in­law of respondent No.2 i.e. the original complainant, has prayed to quash and set aside the First Information Report being C.R. No.I­52 of 2014 registered with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

 

2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court vide oral order dated 17.11.2014, the private respondent has appeared and filed her affidavit opposing grant of any reliefs in favour of the applicant  herein.

 

3. The brief facts arise from the record are that the complainant entered into the marriage with accused no.1 namely, Ashishbhai Pravinchandra Thakkar on 17.02.2014, and started residing with her husband and her in­laws at Ahmedabad. She was carrying her further study. It was stated in the FIR that the present applicant, who happens to be her sister­in­law (husband's sister) residing with her husband and family members at Vadodara.

 

3.1 It was alleged in the FIR that initially she was properly treated by her in­laws, but thereafter they have misbehaved with her and started quarrel on her minor mistakes. It was alleged that when her father came at her matrimonial home, the parents of her husband were complaining about her that she was not properly caring her husband and in­laws. It was further alleged that her husband and her in­laws did not want a child for some period. However, she was compelled to consult the Doctor and her father­ in­law used to ask some personal questions. Thereafter, the husband has started abusing her and criticized about her physical look and compelling her to sleep separately. It was also alleged that the amount was demanded by the family members i.e. her husband and her in­laws. It was also alleged that whenever the complainant's mother­in­law called the present applicant at her matrimonial home, the present applicant also used to quarrel with the complainant. Having fade up with the said behavior, she left her matrimonial home and resided at her parental home and therefore, she has no other alternative but to file the present FIR.

 

4. Mr. Devang Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that it is an admitted position that the present applicant along with her husband are residing with her in­ laws at Vadodara. After marriage of the complainant, she has never stayed in the joint family with her parents or with the complainant and her husband. He would submit that there are no specific allegations have been made against the present applicant in the FIR and prima facie, no offence has been established against the present applicant and therefore, he would submit that the application be allowed and the impugned FIR be quashed and set aside as far as the present applicant is concerned. http://evinayak.tumblr.com  http://vinayak.wordpress.com http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

 

5. On the other hand, Mr. Krunal Shahi, the learned advocate for respondent No.2 ­ the original complainant has opposed the present application. He would submit that initially, an application was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad on 21.08.2014 about behaviour of the accused, including the present applicant. However, the said application was not registered as an FIR and therefore, subsequent FIR was lodged only on 12.09.2014. He would further submit that specific allegations have been made against the present applicant in the said complaint. He would submit that the attention of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad was drawn about non­maintenance of the role of the present applicant by way of filing application dated 13.12.2014, however, no action has been taken by the investigating agency. He would submit that while passing the order dated 17.11.2014, this High Court has stayed the further proceedings and  no investigation is carried out and no chargesheet has been filed against the present applicant.

 

5.1 Mr. Krunal, the learned advocate for the complainant, has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada reported in 2012(6) SCC 353 and in the case of Savita v. State of Rajastha reported in 2005(12) SCC 338. In the said decisions, the Apex Court has held that at the initial stage, the complaint may not be quashed by exercising extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the complaint shall not be quashed at an early stage of the investigation. He would submit that the present application be dismissed.

 

6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties. I have also gone through the papers of investigation, the statements of witnesses and the chargesheet which has been filed qua the other accused .

 

7. It is an admitted position that the present applicant is residing with her husband and her in­laws at Vadodara and no specific allegation has been made against the present applicant. As far as the application submitted in the month of August 2014 is concerned, the only allegation is made by the original complainant against the present applicant that she used to talk with the mother­ in­law of the complainant and she used to support by talking on telephone for long time. The statements of the witnesses also speak on the same line that is the present applicant used to talk with her  mother. As far as the submission made by the complainant with regard to non­maintenance of the role of the present applicant is concerned, the said application dated 13.12.2014 has been submitted by the complainant after the stay granted by this Court on 17.11.2014.

 

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances as aforesaid and as far as the judgments relied upon by the learned advocate are concerned, as stated hereinabove, I have gone the same and also the statements of the witnesses as well as the chargesheet has been filed qua the other accused persons and the allegations made in the FIR, no offence has been made out against the present applicant, who is married and residing at her matrimonial home at Vadodara, I am of the opinion that the present application requires consideration. Hence, the present application is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I­52 of 2014 registered with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicant. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.

 

(A.J.DESAI, J.)

 

 

chandresh

 

#498a

#498a_quash

#498a_quash_against_sister-in-law

 

 

PDF uploaded to http://1drv.ms/1BPpHZT

 

 


*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist