Babubhai Sadabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat
Date: 19 April, 2023
Bench: Honourable Justice Ilesh J. Vora
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 14756 of 2013
Facts
In the instant case, the respondent was married to a man. However she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the man and in- laws. She alleged that the husband and her in laws used to physically abuse her over trivial matters and also over the fact that she had delivered a girl child. It was also alleged that the husband kept pressurising the respondent to get Rs. 2 lakhs from her father. Hence, due to constant physical and mental harassment by her husband, in laws and brother in law, she had left the matrimonial home. As a result, the respondent lodged an FIR against the husband and present applicants(in laws) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of IPC as well as section 3 of the Dowry prohibition act. The applicants have filed a suit before this court to quash the FIR against them.
Section 498A deals with punishment for cruelty which may extend to three years imprisonment. Section 323 deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt which may extend to one year imprisonment. Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation. Section 3 of the Dowry prohibition act prescribes the punishment for taking dowry which may extend to one year imprisonment.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants contended that this was a classic example of misuse of process of law, as by making exaggerated version of the concocted incident, without specific instances of harassment, the entire family members had been impleaded as accused and therefore pleaded before the court to quash the FIR.
The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand vehemently opposed the plea of quashing of the FIR and contended that looking to the allegations levelled in the FIR against the applicants, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants.
Judgement
The court considered the facts and circumstances and came to an understanding that there was no plausible explanation to substantiate the fact that her in-laws had abetted the husband in the commission of the act of cruelty and it was also not specifically disclosed in the FIR. The court held that bald allegations were made against the in-laws with a malicious intent of roping in and trying to prosecute as many of the husband’s relatives as possible
For the foregoing reasons, the Court held that the accusations made against the applicants did not constitute any offence and hence the FIR was quashed.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
