Oral Judgment
1. The petitioners before this Court have invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash and set aside FIR being CR No.I-172 of 2019 lodged before the Puna Police Station District Surat for offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 406, 506(2), 504 of the IPC and sections 3 & 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act dated 6 th of May 2019.
2. The facts of the FIR in nutshell are that the marriage of the complainant's daughter, Chandni, with Accused/husband, Pranavbhai Kantibhai Rajpara, was solemnized on 13.11.2014 at Surat according to Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the accused persons, particularly the husband and his family members, started demanding additional dowry in the form of gold, diamond ornaments, cash and other valuable articles and also demanded 10,00,000/-. The complainant alleges that the daughter was subjected to continuous mental and physical cruelty, humiliation, and harassment on account of non-fulfilment of the dowry demands.
2.1 It is further alleged that after the couple shifted to Canada in February 2016, Accused/husband continued to ill-treat the victim by failing to provide her with basic necessities like suitable clothes for the local climate or essential items like a heater, compelling her to earn money, demanding financial assistance for the purchase of a house, and subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty, including an alleged attempt to strangulate her. Thereafter, she returned to India on 11.11.2018, where the other accused allegedly continued the harassment by taunting and insulting her and her parental family over the issue of dowry. The complainant further alleges that despite the victim's return to Canada in January 2019, Accused/husband continued to harass her and refused to maintain the matrimonial relationship. On these allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the accused persons for the offences alleged therein.
2.2. Hence, the present Petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Mahesh K. Poojara on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the Accused/husband would submit that the complainant who is father of Chandni filed this complaint so as to harass and pressurize the family members of the original accused/husband, more particularly, when the husband and wife, i.e., Pranav and Chandni both are staying at Canada at present. It is submitted that in fact, there are disputes between them for which, no family members were made to aware and on the contrary, even at Canada, Chandni resides alone in the house of the accused i.e. Husband namely Pranav and Pranav is residing on a rented premises making all expenses for Chandni. It is submitted that as in fact, after marriage, they have never stayed together at Surat at the house of Accused No.1, 2 & 4.
3.1. Learned advocate for the Accused/husband would further submit that as it appears that a file is required to be submitted for Chandni in 2014, the marriage on a paper was made and thereafter her file was submitted. It is submitted that on 13.11.2014 is the date on which the marriage on paper was made for the purpose of putting up her file. It is submitted that actual marriage took place on 04.02.2016.
3.2. Learned advocate for the Accused/husband would further submit that as on 05.02.2016, the reception was made in Gateway Hotel, on 06.02.2016 all family members were in hotel, 07.02.2016 they went for religious ceremony, 08.02.2016 they went to Dasa, 09.02.2016 again marriage ceremony, 10.02.2016 went back to her parental home, on 11.02.2016 she came back and on 12.02.2016, after organizing the luggage, 13.02.2016 husband wife Pranav and Chandni went to Canada. It is submitted that this was the period of one day, where she stayed at the residence of Petitioner/husband for one day only. It is submitted that as stated above in fact Pranav who is staying at Canada since 2011, he went there for the purpose of Master's of Engg. It is submitted that an absolutely false case was made that she was not properly taken care at Canada;on the contrary they both moved at different places at Canada.
3.3. Learned advocate for the Accused/husband would further submit that as it appears that at Canada, where both are staying together. However as it appears there are certain issues between them and it is the say of petitioner Pranav that it was absolutely unbearable for him to stay together as because of cruel behavior of Chandni. On the contrary, he was also assaulted once. It is submitted that in response to the grievance addressed before Canada police, on 03.02.2016 as there is a frivolous argument between husband and wife, and it was noticed that there was so much of pressure.
3.4. Learned advocate for the Accused/husband would further submit that on 11.11.2018 Chandni came back alone from Canada, they both were supposed to come together and though tickets and everything arranged by the petitioners and programme that, both have to stay together but as it appears that Chandni came back and even returned back at her own alone on 04.12.2018. It is submitted that her return tickets were also arranged by her and went back alone and at present staying at Canada. It is submitted that at present the situation is that Pranav is staying alone at different places at Canada.
3.5. Learned advocate for the Accused/husband would further submit in fact petitioner no.1 had made financial help running about more than 50 lacs to the complainant for starting of new office in the name as Chandni Software Group. In fact he was to be taken as a partner as huge amount is invested. It seems that though substantial amount was taken, the firm was made open where no name of petitioner no.1 is mentioned.
3.6. Learned advocate for the Accused/husband would further submit that as because the petitioner had requested to return the amount, as they are not interested to return to pressurize, it seems that such harassment meted out to her by filing this false criminal prosecution.
3.7. Learned advocate for the Accused/husband would further submit absolutely false and frivolous accusations are made though in fact marriage took place in the year 2016, Chandni stayed only one day at the residence of the petitioners and thereafter both left together for Canada and even as on date also Chandni is staying at Canada in the house of Pranav, still prosecution is made suppressing all these aspects.
3.8. Learned advocate for the Accused/husband would further submit that as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2010 (7) SCC page 667 -Priti Gupta & Ors.Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that "It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigations is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including the Supreme Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Sec.498A of IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberation. It is seen that large number of such complaints are not even bonafide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine 1 cases of dowry harassment is also matter of serious concern. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held in paragraph-34 that Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint, the implications and consequences are not properly infurtherance by the complainant that such complaint can reach to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. The Hon'ble Court has also further held particularly in paragraph-35 that the allegation of harassment by husbands, close relations, who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited place, where the complainant wife resided, would have an entirely different complexion. Such allegations of the complaints are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection." Under the circumstances, the continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but a gross abuse and misuse of process of law and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
4. Learned advocate Mr. N. D. Gohil for the Complainant/Respondent No.2 would submit that deponent's daughter married with Original Accused No.3 on 13.11.2014 as per the Hindu Religion ceremony as per wish of Petitioners. The above said ceremony was conducted at Hatkeshwar Temple, Gopipura, Surat and the same was registered with the Sub Registrar of Surat. From the above facts, it is clear that immediately after marriage, the deponent's daughter stayed with Petitioner's family. The Original Accused No.3 told the depondent's daughter that she may stay with Petitioner's family, so that she can be acquittance with his family. Before coming to Canada, she will have time to stay with at matrimonial home and therefore even though her husband was at Canada, she stayed with her in-laws as per the desire of her husband. It is also stated that Complainant and the Petitioners are residing in Surat City and therefore it was convenient to the deponent's daughter to stay with her in-laws. As and when need so arise, she used to stay with deponent also during the period from 2014 to 2016. In view of the above, it is stated that deponent's daughter had stayed with her in-laws for the period from 2014 to 2016 and not only for 10 days.
4.1. Learned advocate for the Complainant/Respondent No.2 would further submit that immediately after the marriage on 1 st day itself, the Petitioners were not satisfied with the gold and diamonds jewelry/ornaments given to deponent's daughter in marriage. Even Petitioners were not satisfied with gifts given to them from the deponent side in marriage. The stridhan ornaments were kept by the Petitioners by saying that nobody wears gold jewelry in the foreign country and therefore her stridhan was kept by the Petitioners in their locker at Surat City and till date, the stridhan is with the Petitioners. The Petitioners have kept deponent's daughter stridhan in their custody and not returned to her or deponent so far.
4.2. Learned advocate for the Complainant/Respondent No.2 would further submitted that immediately after marriage and before going to Canada, deponent's daughter was given physical and mental torture by the Petitioners. The Petitioners behaviour, attitude and body language was changed because they were not satisfied by the dowry which deponent gave to his daughter in marriage. They started abusing and insulted deponent and his family. She has narrated this facts to deponent and his wife. The Petitioners do not walk with her, she had to take her dinner after all member finished their dinner. The Petitioners behaviour was not good with her. As within a short span of 10 days, Pranav and Chandni were go to Canada, the deponent and his wife told their daughter to tolerate the same for short period and immediately after leaving for Canada, the thing may become normal. But the main reason for unnatural and rude behaviour, exchange of indirect comments, was due to dissatisfaction of dowry and the later on it resulted into severe mental and physical torture and life threats from Original-Accused.
4.3. Learned advocate for the Complainant/Respondent No.2 would further submit that the Petitioners were kept calling to Chandni and torture her mentally by demanding golden ornaments from her parents. Petitioner No.2 frequently talk rubbish and behave rudely and demanded dowry from her parents. The Petitioners on various occasions range up to the Accused, who is staying at Canada and instigated him against deponent daughter. This has resulted in physical and mental torture to her and he has assaulted her in Canada. As the physical and mental torture were unbearable and day by day, the demand of dowry and Rs. 10 lakhs also increased. Therefore, Chandni's stay was not safe in Canada, her life was in danger and day by day, the physical and mental harassment increased and he assaulted and deserted her for dowry. She was subjected to severe mental and physical abuses and life threats for dowry. When she became helpless, she took the help of local police and filed a complaint for assault and desertion for dowry in Canada against Accused. She was not in good health. Her physical condition deteriorated day by day due to mental and physical harassment. The harassment was so severe so at one point, she has suicidal thoughts. She was referred to the emergency treatment at Hospital. She has narrated each and every incidents before the Doctor and Police about physical assault, physical and mental harassment, demand of dowry in Canada, desertion by Original/Accused. All the Petitioners also started torturing her on telephone and instigated Accused for purchase of house at Canada. In the year 2017, Original Accused demanded $40,000/- (Forty Thousand Dollars) i.e. Rs. 20 lakhs approximately for down payment of buying house. He gave mental torture her for joining service and all house hold work. He demanded money every now and then. Accused used to ill-treat Deponent's daughter in front of his friends in Canada. When she was suffering from urinary tract infection and sick for 1 and half months after coming to Canada in 2016, he did not took her to doctor by stating that doctors fees-charges are very high in Canada. The Accused No.2-Mother and sister-in-law on various occasions instigated on mobile to Accused/husband and created miunderstanding between both husband and wife. On some occasions, after alcohol drinks, Accused/husband used to abuse and gave physical and mental torture to her. She was subjected to severe mental and physical torture and life threats for dowry. When she became helpless and scarred, she took help of local police and filed a complaint against the Accused/husband for Domestic Violence and desertion at Canada. She also filed a complaint to National Commission of Women, Ministry Affairs, Government of India, at New Delhi. In canada, she also filed a complaint before Brampton Civic Hospital, doctors about ill treatment and physical and mental harassment given to her by her husband. He has opened face, illegal bitcoin A./c in name of Chandni. Due to her police complaint in Canada, she is given protection and the restraining order passed against her husband and he is not permitted to stay with her or harassment to her in any direct/indirect form and he is on probation and trial of police complaint in Canada.
4.4. Learned advocate for the Complainant/Respondent No.2 would further submit that the photos and whatsapp messages of deponent daughter and her husband reflect one sided story. It is submitted that whatsapp chat between husband and wife for the period from November 2014-May, 2017 also discloses that during above period, the dispute started between both the family and the relation was not healthy and the Petitioners continued torturing the deponent's daughter for dowry. The physical and mental harassment and demand of dowry was such an extend from all the accused named in FIR, the deponent has filed a complaint at Surat and his daughter has filed a complaint against her husband about assualt, desertion, physical and mental torture to her in Canada and the same is pending trial.
4.5. Learned advocate for the Complainant/Respondent No.2 would further submit that all these circumstances would cleary show that a well planned physical and mental harassment is given to deponent's daughter. She is alone in Canada. Her health is not good. She is at mercy of Canadian and (Indian Embassy) Indian Government. Her narration about physical and mental harassment before Doctors and Police in Canada is just more than sufficient to disclose the ill-treatment given by all the accused to the deponent's daughter.
4.6. Learned advocate for the Complainant/Respondent No.2 would further submit that the Accused No.3 purchased air ticket (Canada to India & India to Canada) for deponent's daughter from Canada to India for journey on 11.11.2018 and he told that he will be joined her in India later on and planned to return to Canada together on 25.12.2018. Therefore, deponent's daughter has to travel alone from Canada to India as per wish and desire of her husband. Her return ticket was 25.12.2018 from India to Canada, but she received a message from her collegue on 01.12.2018 that her company where she is serving is laying off employees from their job, so at that perticular time, Chandni has immediately rushed to Canada on 04.12.2018 to save her job. She reported in time even though her service contract was terminated by 06.12.2018. At present, she is jobless. Her physical and mental condition is not sound. She is alone in Canada under police protection and no one is there to look after her and take her care in this critical period. In view of this fact, to saver her contract job, she had to travel alone from India to Canada early. In view of this fact, she was not in a position to travel with her husband from India to Canada on 25.12.2018.
4.7. Learned advocate for the Complainant/Respondent No.2 would further submit that the deponent was running accounting software in name of Chandni Computer Consultancy since 1998 at M-13, Supertex Tower, Opp. Kinnari Cinema, Ring Road, Surat. The above office property was purchased on 08.11.1998 in the name of Smt. Illaben Harilal Vaghasia, who is deponent's wife. By passage of time of 20 years, the office premises were not having sufficient space and due to shortage of space area, a new office premise was purchased by the deponent in his name and in name of his wife. The new offfice premises consisting of shop No.203 and 204 and its area is almost double than the old premises. The new premises were purchased by A/c payee cheque of the deponent and his wife. The deponent has purchased new premises from his family personal savings. The deponent has not borrowed any loan amount from the Petitioner No.1. The contention raised by the Petitioners in Para-9 of the Petition is denied, the accused has not made any financial help of Rs. 50 lacs to the deponent for the purchase of new office premises. In fact, it was very old company running in the name of deponent's daughter and therefore company was named in the same name at new premises. As the entire amount was invested by the deponent and his wife, so the Petitioner No.1 can not claim about partnership of company in the name of defendant's daughter. The Petitioner may produce any evidence, if he has invested for partnership of new office premises. If the Petitioner No.1 has invested any amount, he may produce some amount/evidence/proof of income tax return. It is stated that as no any financial assistance was taken by the deponent from the Petitioner No.1, his name was not joined as a partner. The Petitioner has not so far made any grievance about his assistance-help for purchase of new premises against the deponent so far.
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
5.1. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the father of the victim (Chandni). It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage between Chandni and Accused/husband namely Pranav was solemnized on 13.11.2014, and further ceremonies were conducted in February, 2016. The complainant alleges that soon after the marriage, the petitioners (husband and in-laws) demanded additional dowry, including gold, diamonds, and ₹10,00,000 in cash. It is alleged that the in-laws kept her stridhan and continuously taunted her. The couple subsequently moved to Canada in February 2016. The complainant alleges that in Canada, the husband subjected the victim to severe physical and mental cruelty, forced her to earn and pay for a house, denied her basic necessities, and assaulted her. It is further alleged that the in-laws instigated the husband telephonically from India. The physical and mental torture allegedly escalated to the point where the victim had to seek police protection and medical help in Canada, resulting in a restraining order against the husband.
5.2. Case of the Petitioners: Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the FIR is an abuse of the process of law, filed with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that the marriage in 2014 was purely a "paper marriage" for immigration purposes, and the couple barely lived with the in- laws in Surat for a few days before leaving for Canada in February 2016. The petitioners contend that the disputes are primarily between the husband and wife in Canada, stemming from temperamental differences, and the in-laws have been unnecessarily roped in. Furthermore, the defense claims that Petitioner No. 1 had advanced a sum of ₹50 Lakhs to the complainant for his software business, and the present FIR is a counterblast to pressurize the petitioners into forgiving this financial debt. Reliance has been placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Preeti Gupta & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667.
5.3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS The parameters for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR are well-settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR (1992) SC 604 laid down guidelines outlining circumstances where criminal proceedings may be quashed, particularly where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence. In matrimonial disputes, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned High Courts regarding the growing tendency to implicate all family members of the husband through general and omnibus allegations. In Preeti Gupta (supra), the Court observed that complaints under Section 498-A are often filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues, and roping in relatives living in different cities requires careful scrutiny. More recently, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific and distinct allegations, family members of the husband cannot be forced to undergo the rigors of a criminal trial based on general and omnibus accusations.
5.4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:- Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and having perused the materials on record, including the FIR and WhatsApp chats referenced, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the case of the husband and the in-laws separately.
5.5. Qua the In-laws (Petitioners other than the Husband): A careful reading of the FIR and the submissions reveals that the couple stayed together in Surat for a very brief period before departing for Canada in February 2016. The primary allegations against the in-laws (parents-in-law and sister-in-law) are that they kept the stridhan, behaved rudely, were dissatisfied with the dowry, and instigated the husband over the telephone. These allegations fall squarely within the category of general, vague, and omnibus allegations. The in-laws resided in Surat, India, while the primary matrimonial home where the alleged extreme cruelty, assault, and desertion took place was in Canada. The allegation of "telephonic instigation" is routinely added in such FIRs to rope in distant relatives. There is no specific instance, date, or distinct role attributed to the in-laws regarding the demand for ₹10,00,000/- or active participation in the cruelty that allegedly occurred in Canada. Forcing the in-laws to face a criminal trial on such sweeping and unspecific allegations would result in a grave miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in Preeti Gupta and Kahkashan Kausar, the FIR qua the petitioners other than the husband deserves to be quashed. It is frequently observed in matrimonial disputes that FIRs are drafted with sweeping, generic statements such as "harassment started from the very first day" or "demands began from the day of the engagement." While dealing with such averments, the Court is duty-bound to separate the wheat from the chaff. A bare perusal of this specific allegation reveals that it is broad and lacks material particulars--such as which specific petitioner made the demand, what exactly was demanded on the day of the engagement, and how that demand was communicated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 took strict note of the growing tendency to implicate all family members of the husband using general and omnibus allegations. The Court explicitly held that unless distinct and specific roles are attributed to the relatives in the demand for dowry or acts of cruelty, they cannot be forced to undergo a criminal trial. Applying this precedent, the allegation that "dowry was demanded from the day of engagement," when used to implicate the entire family of the husband, falls squarely within the category of an omnibus allegation. Without specific instances, dates, or exact words attributed to the mother-in-law, father-in-law, or sister-in-law on the day of the engagement, this statement appears to be a routine exaggeration designed to cast a wider net over the husband's family. Allowing a prosecution to continue against the in-laws based on such a sweeping, unparticularized statement would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this allegation does not alter the conclusion that the FIR qua the in-laws deserves to be quashed. The allegation that dowry demands began on the day of the engagement or from the first day of marriage are treated as a general and omnibus statement qua the in-laws, thereby reinforcing the decision to quash the proceedings against them to prevent the abuse of the legal process.
5.6. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, this Court passes the following order:
1. The petition is ALLOWED.
2. The FIR being C.R. No. I-172 of 2019 registered with Puna Police Station, District Surat, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby QUASHED AND SET ASIDE qua the Petitioners. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
3. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not influence the Trial Court during the trial of other accused. Direct service is permitted.
4. In view of the main application is allowed as aforesaid, Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2019 for vacating the interim relief does not survive. The same, accordingly, stands disposed of.
