Citations: Natubhai Somabhai Rohit Vs State of Gujarat (2017) 2 SCC 434

Date of Judgement: 06/04/2017

Equivalent Citation: (2017) 2 SCC 434

Case No.: Criminal Misc. Application No. 20679 of 2013

Case Type: Application for quashing of FIR

Appellant: Natubhai Somabhai Rohit

Respondent: State of Gujarat

Bench: Hon’ble Justice N.VS Anjaria

Court: High Court of Gujarat

Statutes Referred:

  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 482 
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 114, 323, 498A, 504, 506(2)
  • Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Section 3 and 4

Cases Referred:

  • Neelu Chopra and Another Vs Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184],
  • Bhaskar Lal Sharma Vs Monika [(2009) 10 SCC 604],
  • G.V. Rao Vs L.H.V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693

Facts:

  • In the ongoing case, the marriage was solemnised on 21 May 2010.
  • It was contended that, the initial seven months after marriage was smooth enough in the matrimonial house for the wife, and she did not face any such difficulty during initial seven months.
  • However, soon after that it was reported, the members in the matrimonial family specifying her in laws and husband started misbehaving with the complainant over very small issues.
  • Wife also mentioned that she thought after some time, situation will get better with passage of time.
  • In the FIR, she stated that both her sisters-in-law used to give her mental torture and used to taunt her every now and then, for instance she used to taunt her by saying that her educational qualification is unfit to be matched with that of her husband and he would get solemnised with a girl which is up to his educational qualification and is of higher community and well educated who would also be serving with him in the office.
  • It was also alleged by her that in the matrimonial house her husband was also often asked to remarry, and the in laws, husband and other members of the family didn’t want her to be his wife.

Issues Involved:

  • Whether the husband and his relatives can be held liable for being cruel to the wife under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code?
  • Whether the husband and his in-laws, can be charged under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and was any dowry demanded?

Contention of Appellant:

The counsel of Appellant contended that:

  • Mr. Premal Joshi Learned advocate for the applicants contented that applicant No.5 in the case and applicant No.6 in the case, are old persons who are aged about 70 and 90 years respectively and it was respectfully submitted that they have been falsely dragged into the case and so the FIR as they have put wrong allegations against them.
  • It was also submitted by the advocate that applicant No.1 and No.2 have children who are aged about 7 years and 4 years and that they have been staying separately and not with them. Applicant No. 3 and 4 also have minor children who are aged 6 years and 6 months.
  • It was further submitted that the complainant also had earlier moved an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
  • It was also stated that the instant FIR came to be filed out of revenge, and allegations therein did not have element of truth.
  • It was further submitted that complainant’s cousin sister married with brother of accused No.1 husband, who has also lodged complaint with Umreth Police Station against all the family members.

Contention of Respondent:

The counsel of Respondent contended that:

  • Whereas the learned advocate for the complainant submitted that the First Information Report contained the allegations about harassment, taunting and that it was asked to the complainant to bring dowry and therefore the offences alleged are made out.
  • They therefore submitted that the First Information Report was not liable to be quashed.

Judgement:

The court in this case while scrutinizing facts and circumstances of the case held that, the First Information Report which was filed based on the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 3 and Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and is hereby quashed.

The judgement was made absolute.

Ratio Decidendi:

  • This case has been mainly roping in and of the people who are not really connected with the matrimonial dispute.
  • The wife filed FIR not only against her spouse but also includes the in-laws of her husband. Hence, the application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed for quashing the First Information Report which has been filed.
  • The concepts highlighted in this case are sufficient grounds for quashing an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and establishment of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Obiter Dicta:

The allegations which were shown to be non-specific and not of the degree of seriousness contemplated in law, and when the applicants accused are shown to be living separately including attendant facts and aspects, the allegations become too bald to be sustained in law.

Conclusion:

We can conclude by saying that court made this case a landmark case while discharging of the fake allegation. It has also been said that to constitute the crime of cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty”.

It was also that, there must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”.

Drafted By: Bharti Verma, Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies and School of Law

Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider

Published On: October 3, 2021 at 13:32 IST

Related Post