CR.MA/4515/2003 1/18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 4515 of 2003 with CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 4516 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= 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 ? ========================================= = RAMJIBHAI L.PITHAVA & 2 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR YS LAKHANI with MR JA ADESHRA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. MR KP RAVAL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, MR PRADEEP PATEL with Mr.Nikhil Joshi for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 02/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By these applications under section 482 of the Code of CR.MA/4515/2003 2/18 JUDGMENT Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) the petitioners seek quashment of the first information report being Mahila Police Station, Anand I C.R. No.16/2002 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No.5806/2002 which is pending before the Chief Court, Anand. 2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein lodged the aforesaid complaint against the petitioners of both these applications as well as against Ashokbhai Ramjibhai Pithava her husband (accused No.1) alleging commission of the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.4515 of 2003 are the father-in-law, mother-in-law (since deceased) and the brother-in-law of the complainant and the petitioners in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.4516 of 2003 are the three sister-in-laws (husband’s sisters) of the complainant. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that except for the petitioner No.3 in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.4516 of 2003 all the other petitioners are residing at Ahmedabad and were at the relevant time residing at Ahmedabad whereas the complainant was residing separately with her husband at Vidyanagar. According to the petitioners with mala fide intention and with the ulterior motive to harass the entire family, a false and fabricated complaint has been filed against the entire family of the husband for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It CR.MA/4515/2003 3/18 JUDGMENT is in these circumstances, that the petitioners have filed the present applications for quashing the compliant in question. 4. Heard, Mr. Y.S. Lakhani learned Advocate with Mr. J.A. Adeshra learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. K.P. Raval learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat and Mr. Nikhil D. Joshi for Mr. P.J. Patel learned Advocate for the respondent No.2. 5. Mr. Y.S. Lakhani learned Advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the complaint has been lodged on 23rd September, 2002 for the offence which is alleged to have been committed two years prior thereto, hence there is considerable delay in the lodging of the said complaint. It is pointed out that the marriage had taken place on 8th September, 2000, therefore, according to the complainant, the offence has been committed around the time of the marriage. It is pointed out that according to the complainant herself she was staying at her parental home since 4th January, 2001 to demonstrate that she has resided at her husband’s place at Vidyanagar only for a period of only three months and twenty six days. It is urged that the allegations made in the complaint have to be considered in the light of the aforesaid facts. It is submitted that except for one petitioner, all the petitioners were residing at Ahmedabad, hence, the allegation that they were often coming to the complainant’s house at Vidyanagar during the short CR.MA/4515/2003 4/18 JUDGMENT span of her married life is not believable. It is contended that the allegations made in the complaint are vague and general in nature inasmuch as there are no particulars as to when and who had subjected her to harassment. Referring to the application under section 125 of the Code made by the respondent No.2 it is pointed out that in the said application, it is stated that the son was born at her husband’s house. It is, accordingly, submitted that considering the allegations made in the maintenance application vis-à-vis the allegations made in the complaint there are striking contradictions, which demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made in the complaint. 6. Referring to the provisions of section 498A IPC, it is submitted that taking the allegations made in the compliant at face value, the ingredients of section 498A are not satisfied. It is submitted that none of the allegations made in the compliant can be said to amount to cruelty as envisaged under the explanation to section 498A IPC. It is submitted that there is no allegation insofar as clause (a) of the Explanation is concerned. As regards clause (b) it is submitted that the cruelty contemplated thereunder has to be in the nature of harassment with a view to meet any unlawful demand for any property. It is submitted that there are no allegations made in the complaint that there was any demand for any property. It is pointed out that the allegation is to the effect that under the pretext of obtaining a loan for the purpose of constructing a house they used to send her to her father’s house to get CR.MA/4515/2003 5/18 JUDGMENT money, which can by no stretch of imagination be said to be a demand for property or valuable security as envisaged under section 498A. 7. On the other hand Mr. Nikhil D. Joshi learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the applications. It is submitted that a perusal of the averments made in the compliant make it amply clear that the respondent No.2 has suffered cruelty at the hands of her in-laws. It is pointed out that there is a specific allegation in the complaint that there was a demand for money for construction of a house, which fact has not been dislodged before the trial court in proceedings under section 125 of the Code. It is pointed out that one sister-in-law resides at Anand and two others at Ahmedabad, all of whom were frequently visiting the house of the complainant. That there are clear allegations against the mother-in-law and father- in-law. Referring to the provisions of clause (b) to the Explanation to Section 498A, it is submitted that in the present case harassment has been caused to the complainant to meet an unlawful demand in the nature of money from her father to construct his house. Harassment was also on account of failure by her or her father to meet with such demand. It is urged that apart from the aforesaid, the basic fact is the petitioners were torturing her for not bringing anything. It is submitted that considering the allegations in the FIR, it is clear that it was at the instigation of the other accused that the husband was subjecting her to cruelty, hence, the provisions of Section 114 IPC would be duly attracted. CR.MA/4515/2003 6/18 JUDGMENT Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi,(2007)11 JT 122 to submit that once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. It is submitted that prior to 23rd September, 2002, earlier also the complainant had filed an application before the Mahila Police Station pursuant to which the police authorities had tried to convince her husband and in-laws however they had refused to keep her. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the delay in filing the complaint is properly explained in the complaint itself. It is contended that the present case does not fall within any of the categories laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal’s case, hence no intervention is called for by this Court and the applications deserve to be rejected. 8. In rejoinder, Mr. Y.S. Lakhani learned Advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that in the case before the Supreme Court all the in-laws were residing together. That there was a demand for Rs.5 lacs and allegation of retention of stridhan. The High Court while quashing the compliant had gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and had acted in excess of its jurisdiction by considering the police report submitted before it even before it could be filed before the concerned Magistrate. It is submitted that in the present case harassment is missing totally insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. It is submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do not fall within the scope of Section 498A. It is, accordingly, urged that to prevent the abuse CR.MA/4515/2003 7/18 JUDGMENT of process of Court, the first information report in question is required to be quashed. 9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties and has perused the record of the case. 10. It is settled legal position as held by the Supreme Court in a catena decisions, including the above referred decision cited by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.2, that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. It would, therefore, at the outset, be necessary to examine the allegations made in the compliant to ascertain as to whether the same disclose any offence as alleged. 11. A perusal of the complaint shows that according to the complainant her marriage took place about two years prior to the filing of the complaint and that out of the wedlock there is a son aged one and a half years, who is residing with her. At her in-laws place, there are her father-in-law Ramjibhai, mother-in-law Kundanben, brother-in-law Anilbhai and sister-in-law Hansaben whose marital home is at Ahmedabad but as she does not get along with her husband she resides with her (the complainant’s) in-laws. Her sister-in-law Falguni resides at her matrimonial home at Ahmedabad. As her CR.MA/4515/2003 8/18 JUDGMENT husband Ashokbhai Pithva is an Electrical Engineer and is carrying on the business of selling Xerox and FAX machines and repairing them, he used to reside at Vallabh Vidyanagar in a tenement in Vishwakarma Bhuvan, Nana Bazaar, where she had gone to reside after marrying him where during the short span of her married life, her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in- law and her three sisters-in-law used to frequently come to Vidyanagar and stay with them. The marital home of her second sister-in-law Sangitaben is at Anand and she resides there with her husband Ashwinbhai Gohil and she often used to come to her house at Vidyanagar. That her father had at the time of her marriage given her dowry as per the customs of their community, however her in-laws being very greedy, her mother-in- law Kundanben, sisters-in-law Sangeetaben and Falguniben used to come to their house at Vidyanagar and taunt her saying that her father has not given her any dowry and that their Ashok has been married in a family of beggars. She used to tolerate their harassment and lived with her husband at Vidyanagar and whenever her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother- in-law, sister-in-law came to her place, under the pretext of obtaining a loan for the purpose of constructing a house, they used to send her to her father’s house to get money and as her father belongs to the middle class and lives in a rented home and did not have the money, she did not ask him for money. But on account of instigation by her mother-in-law and father-in-law, her husband Ashok, despite there being no fault on her part would find faults in small things and CR.MA/4515/2003 9/18 JUDGMENT harass her immensely. However, under the belief that everything will become all right and as she was pregnant, she tolerated everything and her husband with the malafide intention of severing relations with her father would order her not to keep relations with anyone at her parental home and would threaten her that if he catches her talking to anyone he would divorce her and would tarnish her reputation due to which she would not be able to get married elsewhere. That her husband and her in-laws being greedy and being hungry for money, had threatened her father and brothers that he would ensure that they all had to leave Anand and would not let them carry on their business. As her Shrimant ceremony was to be performed, her father had informed regarding the same. Her husband had called everyone from Ahmedabad and no one had called her father. Only for the purpose of pehramani, her brother Kiran had been called and money was demanded from him and he was told to take away his sister and threatened that if he brings her there again he would burn her alive, hence, left with no other option or remedy, her brother took her to her parental home. After her husband threw her out of the house, she had given birth to a son but her husband had told her that if her father gives him money to build a house, he would fetch her but as her father did not have the money her husband would call her up in the dark at the society where she was residing and luring her by saying that he would take her home, would call her and take her on the scooter and would drop her back in the dark and she would feel that her husband has reformed but her CR.MA/4515/2003 10/18 JUDGMENT husband used to quietly pick her up from her parental home and drop her back at night with a view to create an impression in the society that she was immoral and would go about telling everyone in the market that she had a loose character and would malign her. That at the time when she was thrown out of her house with her brother, he had taken her signatures on certain blank papers and she does not know what was written in them and presently he has obtained the phone numbers of the residents of the neighbourhood where she was residing and was getting calls made through his friends and acquaintances that she was immoral. Hence, she had made an application to the Women’s Police Station pursuant to which the police authorities had tried to convince her in-laws, however, her husband, her father- in-law, sisters-in-law were refusing to keep her. Thus as at her in-laws place, her husband, her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law, brother-in-law were subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty, she has lodged the present complaint. 12. Looking to the complaint some basic facts, which may be noticed, are that according to the complainant herself, she was at all times since her marriage, residing separately with her husband the accused No.1, at Vidhyanagar. It is common knowledge that Vidyanagar is at a considerable distance from Ahmedabad, where all the petitioners except for one, are residing. One married sister-in-law resides at Anand along with her husband and children. The assertions made in the compliant are to the effect that within the short span of CR.MA/4515/2003 11/18 JUDGMENT her married life (less than four months) her in-laws used to visit them often. It may also be noted that every member of the husband’s family has been implicated in this case. The allegations made in the complaint are required to be examined in the light of these facts. 13. Looking to the contents of the compliant, the allegations against the petitioners are that whenever the complainant’s mother-in-law and sisters-in-law came to their house at Vidyanagar they would taunt her saying that her father has not given her any dowry and that their Ashok has been married in a family of beggars. Whenever her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law came to her place, under the pretext of obtaining a loan for the purpose of constructing a house they used to send her to her father’s house to get money and that on account of instigation by her mother-in-law and father-in-law, her husband Ashok, despite there being no fault on her part would find faults in small things and harass her immensely. The rest of the allegations made in the compliant pertain to the accused No.1 who is the husband of the complainant and is not a petitioner in either of the applications. 14. This Court is, therefore, required to examine as to whether the aforesaid allegations can be said to constitute the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. For this purpose it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of section 498A IPC which reads as under: CR.MA/4515/2003 12/18 JUDGMENT “Husband or relative of husband subjecting her to cruelty. 498A. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 15. Considering the provisions of section 498A IPC, it is evident that to invoke the said provisions against the petitioners there should be allegations that the harassment caused to the complainant fall within the definition of “cruelty” as defined under the explanation thereto. The first allegation which is levelled is against the complainant’s mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law which is to the effect that whenever they came to CR.MA/4515/2003 13/18 JUDGMENT Vidyanagar, they would taunt her saying that her father has not given her any dowry and that their Ashok has been married in a family of beggars, can by no stretch of imagination be said to be cruelty as envisaged under the said provision as the same apparently cannot be said to have been made with a view to coercing the complainant or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security; nor is it the case of the complainant that the conduct of the petitioners was of such a nature as was likely to drive her to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. 16. The second allegation on which the learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 has laid great stress is that whenever her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in- law, sister-in-law came to her place, under the pretext of obtaining a loan for the purpose of constructing a house they used to send her to her father’s house to get money and that on account of instigation by her mother-in-law and father-in-law, her husband Ashok, despite there being no fault on her part would find faults in respect of small things and cause undue harassment to her. Thus the allegation insofar as the petitioners are concerned is that they used to send her to her father’s house to get money under the pretext of obtaining a loan for constructing a house. Though prima facie the said allegation does not fall within the purview of clause (b) of the Explanation to section 498A inasmuch as it cannot be said that there is any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, even if it CR.MA/4515/2003 14/18 JUDGMENT is assumed for a moment that the same amounts to an unlawful demand, the most important ingredient viz. harassment is totally missing insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Thus, to attract the provisions of clause (b) there has to be harassment with a view to coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet with the unlawful demand. There is none. The allegations are only to the effect that the father-in-law and mother-in- law used to instigate her husband who used to find faults in small things without there being any fault on her part and thereby cause harassment to her. 17. In view of the above discussion, taking the allegations made in the FIR at face value, the harassment alleged insofar as the petitioners are concerned, does not in any manner fall within the scope of the expression “cruelty” as defined under the Explanation to section 498A IPC. Besides, insofar as the sisters-in-law and brother-in-law are concerned, there is no allegation even of instigating the husband. In the circumstances, there is no justification in invoking the provisions of section 498A IPC insofar as the petitioners are concerned. In the opinion of this Court the present case falls within the categories laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335. 18. The aforesaid view taken by this Court finds support in the following decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. CR.MA/4515/2003 15/18 JUDGMENT 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 CRI.L.J. while construing the applicability of the provisions of section 498-A, 406 IPC and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has held as follows: “6. Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-Gowri Ramaswamy. Looking at the allegations in the F.I.R. and the contents of charge- sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences, viz. Sections 498-A, 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant's husband who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time, i.e. between March and October, 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of informant by her sister-in-law (appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to the informant. What was said against her in the F.I.R. is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash W.C. and she used to abuse her and use to pass remarks such as 'even if you have got CR.MA/4515/2003 16/18 JUDGMENT much jewellery, you are our slave'. It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowri was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against her. Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant