IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 1742 of 2015
IVAN ALBOM D’SOUZA & 3….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
Appearance:
MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1-4
HARSHESH R KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1-4
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 24/11/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. At the outset, this application is not pressed so far as the applicant No.1-husband is concerned.
2. By this application under section 482 of the Code, the applicants-original accused persons seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R.No.I-94 of 2014 registered with the Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) for the offence punishable under sections 323, 376, 377, 498A, 506 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. It appears from the materials on record that the applicant No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2. The applicant No.2 is the father-in-law, the applicant No.3 is the mother-in- law and the applicant No.4 is the married sister-in-law of the first informant. The respondent No.2 was earlier married. She married for the second time with the applicant No.1 at Ahmedabad. I am told that the rituals were performed in Ahmedabad whereas the registration was done at Pune. The respondent No.2 is Hindu by caste. The applicants before me are Christians. It appears that after the marriage, sometime in 2007, the applicant No.1 and the first informant stayed at Pune up to 2011. While they were residing at Pune, the applicants Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the in-laws were residing at Manglore, State of Karnataka. The applicant No.4-sister-in-law is residing even as on today at Doha, Katar. She is a married lady. In the year 2011, the applicant No.1 and the first informant decided to migrate to Doha. They stayed at Doha up to 2014. Matrimonial disputes cropped up between the husband and wife and, therefore, the first informant had to return to India in the year 2014. In the wedlock, a son was born. After the wife returned to India from Doha, she thought fit to lodge the first information report at the concerned police station on 12 th December, 2014.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the allegations levelled in the first information report, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the first information report should be quashed as prayed for. Mr. Kakkad, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the allegations levelled in the first information report are absolutely false, baseless and frivolous. He submitted that for no reason the first informant went to the extent of levelling serious allegations against the applicants in the first information report. According to Mr. Kakkad, the case is one of maladjustment in the marital life and the allegations of cruelty are without any basis.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the first informant would submit that more than a prima facie case could be said to have been made out having regard to the allegations levelled in the first information report. He would submit that the plain reading of the first information report discloses commission of cognizable offences and the police should be permitted to complete the investigation in accordance with law.
6. Mr. Patel, the learned APP, submitted that the first information report, prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offences and the police is investigating into the same. He pointed out that charge-sheet has not been filed till this date.
7. I am of the view that no case for quashing of the first information report is made out so far as the applicant No.1- husband is concerned. The plain reading of the first information report discloses commission of a cognizable offence so far as the husband is concerned. It would be too early to say anything as regards the accusation being false. I should not embark upon an inquiry whether the allegations are true or false at this stage. However, having regard to the dates referred to above, I am of the view that so far as the applicants Nos.2,3 and 4 are concerned, the case can be considered for quashing. At the cost of repetition, I may point out that after the marriage, up to 2011, the applicant No.1 and the first informant stayed at Pune. At that point of time, the applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were residing at Mangalore, State of Karnataka whereas the applicant No.4 married since 1998, was residing at Doha, Qatar. After 2011, till the date of filing of the first information report, the applicant No.1 and the first informant stayed at Doha, Qatar. In such circumstances, it is difficult for me to accept the submission that the applicants Nos.2,3 and 4 are equally responsible for the alleged misdeeds and acts of cruelty on the part of the husband. Since the investigation is still in progress, I refrain myself from going further into the merit of the matter as that would hurt the applicant No.1 in one way or the other.
8. In the result, this application is partly allowed. The application so far as the applicant No.1 is concerned, stands rejected. The investigating officer is directed to complete the investigation at the earliest in accordance with law. So far as the applicants Nos.2,3 and 4 are concerned, the first information report stands quashed. The interim relief granted earlier as regards no coercive steps to be taken, stands vacated forthwith. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.