Category Archives: NRI 498a Quash

HC quashes dowry case against NRI brothers. Indian courts can’t hear matter if demand made abroad

Screenshot - 2_17_2018 , 11_13_47 AM

HC quashes dowry case against NRI brothers

Says Indian courts can’t hear the matter if demand for money is made abroad

Source : THE TRIBUNE, PUNJAB

Posted at: Feb 15, 2018, 1:23 AM; last updated: Feb 15, 2018, 1:23 AM (IST)

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 14

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that dowry demand raised abroad can’t be tried by courts in India. The HC quashed a dowry harassment case against two NRI brothers, accused of instigating their brother to such a demand.

“In the instant case, even if there was instigation at the behest of the petitioners for demand of Rs 5 lakh from the complainant, the demand was raised outside the territorial jurisdiction of Bathinda. Therefore, the courts are not competent to entertain the matter,” Justice Jaishree Thakur ruled.

Justice Thakur said specific role, injury, dowry demand, entrustment of dowry articles, “istridhan” or its misappropriation was not attributed to the petitioners. “It is apparently clear that the FIR has been registered against the petitioners only to harass the family,” the judge added.

The ruling came on a bunch of two petitions filed against Punjab and other respondents by Rajesh Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta through counsel RS Bajaj. They were seeking the quashing of an FIR dated July 14, 2012, registered at Kahnwan police station in Pathankot district under Sections 406, 498-A, 420 and 34 of the IPC. Directions were also sought for quashing all consequential proceedings. Bajaj told Justice Thakur’s Bench that the petitioners’ brother and the complainant got married in 2006. Subsequently, the parties resided together in England. No complaint was made during that time before the authorities there or during their annual visits to India. A perusal of the FIR also did not reveal that the petitioners attended the marriage ceremony; or that there was any entrustment of dowry articles.

After hearing Bajaj and going through the documents, Justice Thakur referred to the reply filed in the matter before observing that the petitioners were permanent residents of England and residing separately at a distance of 175 km from the complainant’s matrimonial home. “Even if, for the sake of argument, it is taken into account that the petitioners instigated their brother to raise a demand of Rs 5 lakh from the complainant, it was a demand that was raised in England, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Bathinda. Therefore, the offence, if any, had been committed in England,” Justice Thakur added.

Referring to a similar case before the Supreme Court, she said the parties were residing in Canada, but the FIR was registered in Jalandhar, alleging demand of dowry and misappropriation of dowry articles. “The proceedings were quashed, holding that the Jalandhar court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter,” she concluded.

 

 

Hon JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA quashes #fake498a against NRI husband. Guj HC #498aQuash

In this case, wife files #498a case on her #NRI_Husband. Three incidents are alleged, one of which is on on Feb 2014 while the husband has left India on 04th june 2013 !! He seems to have taken employment and is living in Bahrain (Middle East). The Mother in law is projected as a cruel woman but the allegations against her are vague in nature.

The Hon Judge orders as follows “….I have no hesitation worth the name in quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case referred to above so far as the mother-in-law is concerned. As such, there are no allegations which constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Whatever allegations have been levelled are quite vague and general. So far as the husband is concerned, I take notice of the fact that from June 2013 he is in Bahrain. It seems that he has taken up employment in Bahrain. As usual, it appears that the first informant could not adjust herself at her matrimonial home on account of the disputes which could be termed as mundane matters. In the result, this application is allowed. The FIR being CR-II No.44 of 2014 registered with the Jalalpore Police Station, District Navsari, as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.3757 of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Navsari, are hereby quashed. …”

==========================================================

R/CR.MA/12027/2015 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 12027 of 2015

===============

PARESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI PATEL & 1….Applicant(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)

================

Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 2
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS NISHA THAKORE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 02/02/2017

ORAL ORDER

The respondent no.2 although served with the notice issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to remain present either in person or through an advocate and oppose this application.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused nos.1 and 2 seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the FIR being CR-II No.44 of 2014 registered with the Jalalpore Police Station, District Navsari, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicants before me are none other than the husband and the mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 – first informant.

It appears from the materials on record that the respondent no.2 got married to the applicant no.1 on 10th December 2012. It is alleged in the FIR that the husband is addicted to liquor. The husband used to pick up quarrel on petty issues and harass the first informant.

In the FIR, there is a reference of three specific incidents. Let me start with the incident of 15th February 2013. It is alleged that on that day, the applicant no.1 came home heavily drunk and started beating the first informant. According to the first informant, she left the matrimonial home. While at her parental home, she realized that she had conceived. On 28th September 2013, the first informant gave birth to a baby girl at the Civil Hospital, Navsari. It is alleged that no one from the family of the husband came to inquire about the health of the first informant or to have a look at the new born baby. The third incident is dated 26th February 2014. It is alleged that on that particular day, the applicant no.1 called up the first informant on her mobile and told her that if she would get Rs.1 lac from her parents he would come on the next day and take her back to the matrimonial home. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

As usual, the mother-in-law has also been projected as a very cruel woman.

Mr.Bharda, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that even if the entire case of the first informant is accepted or believed to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute an offence of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are spelt out. He submitted that the FIR is false for the simple reason that on 26th February 2014, the applicant no.1 was not in India and was in Bahrain (Middle East). The learned counsel pointed out that the applicant no.1 left India on 4th June 2013. This itself goes to show that the FIR was concocted by levelling false allegations. He submitted that there is no case worth the name so far as the mother-in-law is concerned.

On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Ms.Thakore, the learned APP appearing for the State. The learned APP would submit that the plain reading of the FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The learned APP would submit that the police should be permitted to complete the investigation so far as the applicant no.1 is concerned. She pointed out that charge-sheet has been filed so far as the mother-in-law is concerned, and in the said charge-sheet, the applicant no.1 has been shown as an absconder. She prays that this application be rejected. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is, whether the FIR so far as the applicant no.1 is concerned, should be quashed and the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.3757 of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Navsari, so far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, should be quashed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

I have no hesitation worth the name in quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case referred to above so far as the mother-in-law is concerned. As such, there are no allegations which constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Whatever allegations have been levelled are quite vague and general. So far as the husband is concerned, I take notice of the fact that from June 2013 he is in Bahrain. It seems that he has taken up employment in Bahrain. As usual, it appears that the first informant could not adjust herself at her matrimonial home on account of the disputes which could be termed as mundane matters.

In the result, this application is allowed. The FIR being CR-II No.44 of 2014 registered with the Jalalpore Police Station, District Navsari, as well as the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.3757 of 2014 pending in the Court of the learned JMFC, Navsari, are hereby quashed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

MOIN


*****************************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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

498a on A2,A3 quashed as wife taken Dvrc&never examied,no CG sanction.Smart husband still @USA.Madras HC

Good recent MADRAS HC case for 498a hit NRIs

Husband continues abroad while rest get 498a quashed. Husband has also fought and taken divorce abroad, NOT even attended divorce case in India !! However USE with a LOT of caution !!

  • Marriage solemnized at USA
  • all alleged cruelty seems to have happened at USA
  • Still, Wife’s father files 498a in India against husband and others
  • Finally husband and wife fight out divorce in California, USA & US court grants them divorce
  • Now A 2 and A 3 get the 498a case quashed against them
  • they argue that central govt permission was NOT taken before taking cognizance (for offenses abroad) and the wife was never examined etc !!
  • Madras HC grants them quash
  • Looks like the smart husband just let the 498a case die it’s natural death and never contested it in India !!

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:05.03.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

CRL.O.P.No.172 of 2012
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 4 of 2012

1. Deepak Chandrasekar
2. Mrs. Savithri Chandrasekar …Petitioners

Vs.

1.State Rep. By Inspector of Police,
W-22, All Women Police Station,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

2.S. Raghuram

3.Gayathri Raghuram ...Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records pending in C.C.No.251 of 2008 from the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, hear the counsel for the petitioners and quash the Charge Sheet (Final Report) filed by the first respondent in Cr.No.8 of 2007 of W-22, All Woman Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai.

For petitioners : M/s. A.L.Somasundaram for M/s. Lakshmipriya Associates

For RR1 : Mr.M. Maharaja

For RR2 : No appearance

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and there is no representation for the respondents.

  1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are A2 and A3 and chargesheet was filed in C.C.No.251/2008 on the file of learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, against the petitioner and one another for offences under Sections 498(A), 406 IPC and 506(i) and 4 of the DP Act.
  2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was registered on the complaint of Mr.S.Raghuram whose daughter was given in marriage to the first petitioner and due to misunderstanding between the husband and wife, the complaint was given by Mr.S.Raghuram and on that basis, after investigation, chargesheet was filed against the petitioners and also against one another person. He further submitted that during the pendency of the investigation, the first petitioner filed divorce petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of California in case # 107FL 140863 and the third respondent, wife of the first petitioner entered appearance through counsel before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of California and an order was passed on 22.01.2008 dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and third respondent. The third respondent also received through her counsel all personal effects on 23.10.2007 and 24.10.2007 as stated in the typed set of papers in pg-26 to 28. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

  3. It is submitted that the third respondent also filed FCOP.No. 3677 of 2009 for dissolution of marriage between her and first petitioner and the first respondent remained absent and divorce was granted by order dated 24.01.2012. He further submitted that the first petitioner also filed application for divorce before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of California on the ground of cruelty and hearing both parties, the marriage was dissolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of California. After dissolution of marriage took place, by the said order the third respondent filed FCOP.No.3677 of 2009 on the ground of cruelty and as marriage was already dissolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of California, the first petitioner did not enter appearance in FCOP.No.3677 of 2009 as it amounted to futile exercise. He therefore submitted that divorce granted on the ground of cruelty by the Principal Family Court, Chennai in FCOP.3677 of 2009 cannot be considered as a case for cruelty committed by the petitioners.

  4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that even according to the prosecution, the marriage was registered at USA and the alleged cruelty took place in USA and no part of the cause of action arose at India and without previous sanction from Central Government, the prosecution itself is also not maintainable. He therefore, submitted that having regard to the dissolution of marriage and settlement of alimony as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of California, nothing survives and the charge sheet may be quashed.

  5. It is submitted by the second respondent that the Defacto complainant was dead and third respondent, the former wife of the first petitioner was also served and she was also represented by the counsel and there was no representation for the third respondent on 23.02.2015 and even today, there is no representation for the third respondent.

  6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that having regard to the divorce granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of California and by the Principal Family Court, Chennai, suitable orders may be passed in the quash petition.

  7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments reported in (1993) 3 SCC 609; (Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others) (2008) 6 SCC 789 (Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another) 1966 Crl.L.J. 366 (Vol.72,C.N.117) (The State, Appellant Vs. Om Parkash Salig Ram, Respondent) and AIR (32) 1945 Oudh 231 (Mohammad Zaman Accused Vs. Emperor) in support of his contention, that when the allegation of cruelty took place in a foreign country without sanction from the Central Government, case cannot be filed in India. He also further relied upon the judgment reported in (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 341 (SC) ( Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. Tr. Princl. Section and Another) to the same effect.

  8. It is seen from the judgment reported in (2012) 1 MLJ (Crl) 341 (SC) ( Thota Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. Tr. Princl. Section and Another) that in respect of offences committed outside India, the enquiry cannot be proceeded with nor the accused be tried without sanction from Central Government as per Proviso 188 of Cr.P.C. As per judgment reported in (1993) 3 SCC 609; (Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and Others) sanction can be obtained before the commencement of trial. He further submitted that the respondent / first respondent police did not examine the third respondent while filing charge sheet and the statement of other witnesses also disclosed that they heard from the third respondent about the alleged dowry demand and cruelty meted out to her and in the absence of any examination of the third respondent, who has stated that she was treated cruelly and dowry was demanded from her, the police should not have filed chargesheet against the petitioners without examining her. He also submitted that this Court in CRL.O.P.No.5887 of 2008 quashed the charges as against the first accused, D.V. Chandrasekaran, who was arrayed as first accused in this case. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

  9. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the proper person to speak about the cruelty, dowry demand is the third respondent who was the wife of the first petitioner herein and admittedly she was not examined and she was not cited as witnesses in the chargesheet.

  10. The statements of other witnessess are also to the effect that they heard Gayathri Raghuram about the treatment meted out to her. Therefore, without examining the third respondent, the police should not have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners. Further having regard to the statements of witnessess that the occurrence took place outside India, the prosecution without obtaining sanction from Central Government as per Proviso 188 is also not proper. Further, the marriage between the first petitioner and the third respondent was already dissolved and in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of California on the petition filed by the first respondent, the marriage was dissolved on the ground of cruelty committed by the third respondent and the third respondent appeared and contested the said proceedings and thereafter only, the third respondent filed FCOP.No.3377 of 2009 before the Family Court, Chennai for divorce on the ground of cruelty and that was also ordered ex parte.

  11. Considering all these aspects, taking cognizance of the offence without sanction from the Central Government is prohibited and the first respondent police also should not have filed chargesheet without examining the third respondent who was the primary witness to cruelty and dowry demand. Hence, the petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.251/2008 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet at Chennai is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

05.03.2015
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No

gv

To

1.The learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

  1. The State Rep. By Inspector of Police,
    W-22, All Women Police Station,
    Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

R.S.RAMANATHAN,J.

CRL.O.P.No.172 of 2012

and

M.P.Nos.1 and 4 of 2012

05.03.2015

*****************************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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Smart NRI does NOT return 2 India aftr 498a. Gets case quashed aftr divorce &wife’s remarriage! GujHC

“…It appears that although charge-sheet was filed, yet the applicant could not be tried as he is still in U.K. On the other hand, the other co-accused came to be tried by the Court below and were acquitted of all the charges. I am told that against such order of acquittal the State preferred an acquittal appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Mr. Ansari has brought to my notice that the respondent No.2 had filed a petition for divorce in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot and the Court has passed a decree to dissolve the marriage. ….”

Finally the court quashes this 498A also !!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 14056 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
**********************************************************
VIMALKUMAR RAJNIKANT THAKKAR….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
**********************************************************
Appearance:
MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
**********************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 30/10/2015

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report registered as C.R. No.I- 306 of 2008 with the City Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 406, 420, 504, 506(2) read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The respondent No.2, original first informant, although served with the notice of rule issued by this Court, has chosen not to appear and oppose this petition either in person or through an advocate.

3. On 5th November, 2014, the following order was passed by this Court;

“Mr. Ansari, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original accused, submits that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized on 14.12.2007 with the respondent No.2 at Rajkot. Thereafter, on 31.12.2007, the applicant left for U.K. In the year 2008, the respondent No.2 joined the applicant herein at U.K. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 came back to India and lodged the first information report against the applicant herein and his parents.

It appears that although charge-sheet was filed, yet the applicant could not be tried as he is still in U.K. On the other hand, the other co-accused came to be tried by the Court below and were acquitted of all the charges. I am told that against such order of acquittal the State preferred an acquittal appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Mr. Ansari has brought to my notice that the respondent No.2 had filed a petition for divorce in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot and the Court has passed a decree to dissolve the marriage. According to Mr. Ansari, in wake of all these developments, probably the respondent No.2 may not be interested to pursue further with the complaint so far as the applicant is concerned.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 27.11.2014. Mr. Shah, the learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of the State of Gujarat. The respondent No.2 be served directly through the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station. Direct service permitted.”

4. It appears that all other family members of the husband were tried and acquitted by the trial court. The State of Gujarat preferred an acquittal appeal which was also ordered to be dismissed by this Court. I am told that the marriage has also been dissolved by a decree passed by the Civil Court. I am told that the respondent No.2 has got married with another person. This is probably the reason why she is now not interested in the matter. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. Even otherwise, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of cruelty punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are spelt out. The marriage was solemnized on 14th December, 2007. On 31st December, 2007, the applicant left for U.K. In the year 2008, the respondent No.2 joined the applicant at U.K. and on 24th December, 2008, the first information report was lodged. There is hardly any period which they spent as husband and wife. The case seems to be one of marital maladjustment.

6. In the result, this application is allowed. The further proceedings of the first information report registered as C.R. No.I-306 of 2008 with the City Police Station, Vadodara are hereby ordered to be quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

Direct service is permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Vahid

*****************************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 with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

Woman settles 498a, divorces & remarries. Still Does NOT appear for quash. Guj HC quashes 498a

In a crisp and clear order, the Honourable Gujarat HC summarises the case thus “…a settlement was arrived at between the parties. The marriage was dissolved and the father-in-law and the mother-in-law came to be acquitted in the trial. I am told that the first informant has got married with another person and has settled in life. Perhaps, that is the reason she has chosen not to remain present before this Court…..
……. Since the settlement has been arrived at and the marriage was also dissolved and the other co-accused have also been acquitted by the trial Court, no useful purpose would be served …….”

498a 504 etc case quashed

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 4130 of 2015

**********************************************************
SOHAM BHARATBHAI BRAHMBHATT….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1….Respondent(s)
**********************************************************
Appearance:
C S SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SM SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR J.K. SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
**********************************************************

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 24/11/2015

ORAL ORDER

Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. J.K. Shah, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 – original first informant, although served with the notice issued by this Court, has chosen not to remain present and oppose this application either in person or through an advocate.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-husband seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the First Information Report lodged with the Satellite Police Station, being C.R No. I-772/07 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC.

It appears from the materials on record that the applicant herein is settled at Canada. The other co-accused named in the FIR i.e. the father-in-law and the mother- in-law were charge-sheeted and were put to trial. In the interregnum period, a settlement was arrived at between the parties. The marriage was dissolved and the father-in-law and the mother-in-law came to be acquitted in the trial. I am told that the first informant has got married with another person and has settled in life. Perhaps, that is the reason she has chosen not to remain present before this Court.

Since the settlement has been arrived at and the marriage was also dissolved and the other co-accused have also been acquitted by the trial Court, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the prosecution so far as the applicant is concerned</B>. In the result, this application is allowed. The FIR No. I-772/07 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC is quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Mohandas