CR.MA/545219/1999 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 5452 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= AMRUTLAL KANJIBHAI BAROT & 3 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HM PRACHCHHAK for Applicant(s) : 1 - 4. MS FALGUNI PATEL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA Date : 20/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.H.M.Prachchhhak and learned APP, Ms.Falguni Patel, for the respondent No.1. CR.MA/545219/1999 2/4 JUDGMENT 2.The respondent No.2-complainant-Sarlaben Hiteshkumar Barot lodged a complaint before the Jam Khambhalia Police Station, District Jamnagar, on 31-8-1999 against five persons including the present four petitioners. It reflects from the FIR that the marriage of the respondent No.2 took place with the accused No.1 i.e. Hiteshkumar Amrutlal Barot six years prior to the complaint and thereafter they were staying together as husband and wife. During their wedlock, they had a male child named Jaydeep. At the time of filing of the complaint, the complainant had categorically narrated the allegations against her husband Hiteshkumar and hence the complaint has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, , 120(b), 504, 506(2), 114 and 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Act as Jam Khambhalia Police Station I.C.R.No.154 of 1999 on 1-8-1999. 3.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, present petitioners numbering four had filed this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the complaint mainly on the ground that the complaint is lodged after a period of six years. It is submitted by Mr.Prachachhak that the complainant had also filed an application CR.MA/545219/1999 3/4 JUDGMENT under Sec.125, Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance of herself and her son Jaydeep. Thereafter, just to pressurise the petitioners and her husband, this false complaint has been filed. It is therefore requested that the said complaint be quashed. 4.I have gone through the complaint in question in detail and have thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5.It is to be noted that the FIR discloses the prima facie ingredients of offence and therefore it is a complaint which requires detailed investigation. Whatever defense that are available to the petitioners can be agitated before the investigating officer. It is not always necessary that a charge sheet will be filed by the Investigating Officer. If the Investigating Officer is satisfied and convinced with the say of the petitioners, he may not even file charge sheet against them. Once the prima facie ingredients of the offence have been disclosed from the FIR, the Court should not enter into further details of the matter and it should allow the investigation to be made. 6.Keeping in mind all the above aspects, since the prima-facie ingredients of the offence has been disclosed from the complaint in CR.MA/545219/1999 4/4 JUDGMENT question, the complaint cannot be quashed and, therefore, the present petition is required to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged. Stay, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. (R.P.DHOLAKIA,J) radhan/