PRATAP C SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners, original accused Nos. 3 and 4 with the following prayers:

(2.) The petitioners herein are qualified medical practitioners in the City of Rajkot and the complainant and accused No.1, namely younger brother of petitioner No.1 and the brother-in-law of petitioner No.2, got married on 6th December 1985. So far as the petitioners are concerned, they were residing in the United States of America with their minor children right from 1984 and continued to reside in the USA till 1991 and, when they returned to India, they purchased their separate residential accommodation at 6, Torren Apartment, Nirmal Convent Road, Rajkot, State of Gujarat and, since then, they have been residing separately. Accused No.1, the husband of the complainant, filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.100 of 2001 in the Court of the Civil Judge [Senior Division], Rajkot, with a prayer for a decree of divorce from the complainant under the provisions of the Act and the said petition is pending. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, upon issuance of summons of the Civil Court in the above Hindu Marriage Petition No.100 of 2001, as a counter-blast, the impugned complaint is filed implicating the petitioners by making false and baseless allegations. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the complaint is read as whole, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and the matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife if any is sought to be converted into a criminal offence. Both the petitioners are reputed citizens of City of Rajkot and have no past criminal record. It is further submitted that though the charge sheet is filed, this Court can certainly look into allegations and if the complaint consists of false allegations not supported by any materials except the hear-say, powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Devendra vs. State of U.P, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495 and Harmanpreetsingh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 712, and submitted that the Court can certainly lift the veil and particularly in case of matrimonial dispute, harassment and abuse of process of law can be avoided by invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the original complainant submits that a bare reading of the complaint and filing of the charge sheet will show that there is prima-facie case against the accused and in view of the statements recorded by the Investigating Agency, which is reflected from the charge sheet which is already filed, exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code is unwarranted in the facts of this case. He further submits that the petitioners being the elder brother and sister-in-law ['jethani'] continued to interfere in the matrimonial life of the husband and the wife and threatened with dire consequences if the divorce deed is not signed by the complainant. The above fact itself will reveal that the complainant was harassed and subjected to cruelty and, therefore, ingredients of Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code are attracted.