Husband refused 2 send wife 2 birthday party. 498a filed & husband JAILED @ Ahmedabad Central Jail. All run for compromise & quash

* In this case the husband is in JAIL for refusing to send his wife to a birthday party … In case you do NOT believe me, please read the entire COURT order, reproduced below

GIST :

* marriage Feb 2012, 498a etc filed in 2014, father in law has filed complaint
* Why was the complaint filed ?? Quoting from order below : “….It is alleged that the unfortunate incident took place as respondent No.2 refused to send his wife to the birthday party of her brother, which led her to take the extreme step……” !!
* The police have swung into action !!!! and Now Husband is JAILED @ Ahmedabad Central Jail “….Applicant No.2 – Aakashsinh Arvindbhai  Rathor shall be released from the Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, upon production of a copy of this order, if not required in any other case….”

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SETTING ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 12878 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
**********************************************************

REKHABEN W/O ARVINDSINH RATHOR & 1….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

**********************************************************
Appearance:
MR C S SHUKLA, MR SM SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 2
MR ANIL C THAKORE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR LB DABHI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
**********************************************************
CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date : 09/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.1. Mr.Anil C.Thakore, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2 (complainant). Considering the facts and circumstances in which the matter arises, it is being heard and decided finally, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) has been preferred by the applicants for quashing and setting aside the complaint filed against them, being C.R.No.I­204/2014, before Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and further consequential proceedings arising out of the same. It is also prayed to order release of applicant No.2 from the Central Jail, Sabarmati, in connection with the said offence.

3. It is the case of the prosecution, based upon  the compliant submitted by respondent No.2 that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant took place with applicant No.2 on 24.02.2012 as per the rites and rituals of the community. The complainant gave Rs.2 lakhs in cash, 5 tolas gold, motorcycle, T.V., refrigerator, sofa­set, and other articles to his daughter at the time of marriage. However, applicant No.2 further demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/­ at the time of marriage, which was given by the complainant. It is alleged that the demands were reiterated and applicant NO.2 used to ask for the day­to­day expenditure from respondent No.2. The daughter of respondent No.2 opposed this conduct of the applicants which led to physical and mental torture and harassment being inflicted upon her. It is alleged that the unfortunate incident took place as respondent No.2 refused to send his wife to the birthday party of her brother, which led her to take the extreme step.

4. It is the case of the applicants before this Court that the matter has now been amicably resolved between them and respondent No.2  (complainant), who has filed an affidavit in this regard, wherein it is stated that the FIR was lodged on account of misunderstanding and misconception. The dispute has now been resolved with the help of friends, relatives and no ill­ will and grievances exist between the parties any more. It is further stated that respondent No.2 has no objection if the FIR in question and the resultant proceedings are quashed and set aside.

5. Mr.S.M.Shukla, learned advocate for the applicants, submits that in view of the fact that respondent No.2 no longer wants to proceed with the criminal litigation against the applicants and as the dispute has been amicably resolved, the prayer made in the application may be granted.

6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance upon upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)4 SCC 582 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another reported in (2012)10 SCC 303.

7. Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 has submitted that the Court may permit the law to take its own course by not granting the prayers made in the application.

8. Mr.Anil C.Thakore, learned advocate for respondent No.2, has reiterated the stand of the said respondent, as stated in the affidavit and has submitted that the dispute has been amicably settled between the applicants and respondent No.2 with the help of friends and relatives and no ill­will and grievances exists amongst them any longer. The FIR has been filed due to misconception and misunderstanding which has been sorted out. Respondent No.2 has, therefore no objection to the granting of the prayers made in the application.

9. The complainant is present in­person in the Court today and has been identified by his learned advocate. He has reiterated the stand  taken by him in his affidavit and has stated that he has no objection if the FIR, and the resultant proceedings are quashed and set aside.

10. In view of the above stand taken by the complainant and taking into consideration the affidavit filed by him, it appears that the dispute between the applicant and the complainant has been resolved amicably and the complainant no longer wants to pursue the criminal litigation. Under the circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by compelling the applicants to face trial.

11. In Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the courts should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in criminal proceedings, since keeping the matter alive, with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution, is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford. The time so saved can  be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation.

12. This position of law has been reiterated in a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra).

13. In view of settlement between the parties and and considering the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (supra) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab And Another (supra), the following order is passed:

The FIR, being C.R.No.I­204/2014, registered with Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same, are hereby quashed and set aside. Applicant No.2 – Aakashsinh Arvindbhai  Rathor shall be released from the Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, upon production of a copy of this order, if not required in any other case.

14. The application is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

15. Direct Service is permitted.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.)

sunil

*****************************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.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s