ARVINDBHAI PRABHASHANKAR TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicants seek to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of private complaint being Criminal Case No.3304 of 2003 (New C.C.No.415 of 2013) filed by respondent no.2, for the offences punishable under Ss. 498(A) , 420 , 406 , 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that applicants are father-in-law, mother- in-law and sister-in-law of respondent no.2. The marriage of Rushilkumar Arvindkumar Trivedi-accused no.1 was solemnized on 29/5/2001 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and thereafter, the complainant was residing at her matrimonial house. A private complaint has been filed on 03. 12.2003, inter alia alleging that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the applicants and husband. It is alleged against the applicants that due to their instigation and support to the husband, she was beaten by the husband and he was demanding dowry as they want to purchase residential flat at Vidhyanagar, Anand. It is further alleged that, the applicants have illegally retained her ornaments and other things, whereby committed an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating. In the aforesaid facts, a private complaint for the offences as referred above, is filed against the applicants and husband before the Magistrate Court, Petlad at Anand. Pursuant to the complaint, the Court has issued summons and accordingly, on 5/7/2006, charges came to be framed for the aforesaid offences. The husband - accused no.1 filed petition for divorce before the learned Senior Civil Court, Anand. During the pendency of the divorce petition (HMP No.63 of 2006), parties have settled the dispute amicably and executed a registered divorce deed and submitted an application for dissolution of marriage before the learned Civil Court. Pursuant to the compromise pursis Exh.12 dtd. 12/8/2006, the learned Civil Court dissolved the marriage and passed a decree of divorce. In view of the decree of dissolution of marriage, the complainant - respondent no.2 had performed the second marriage and since many years, she is residing at London and out of the said wedlock, a child has also been born.

(3.) In the aforesaid facts, the husband and applicants moved an application at Exh.78 before the Magistrate Court at Petlad, inter alia stating that since 2003, the complainant was not remaining present as she is not interested to prosecute the applicants and therefore, due to non- appearance of the complainant, the applicants may be acquitted. The learned Trial Court, vide order dtd. 3/9/2009, dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution and acquitted the applicants for the offences. The wife - respondent no.2, aggrieved with the order, filed a Revision Application before the Court of Sessions at Anand, mainly on the ground that the learned Trial Court having no jurisdiction to pass an order under Sec. 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as the case is warrant triable case whereas Sec. 256 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to the trial of summons cases. The learned Sessions Court, Anand, after hearing the parties, vide its order dated 04. 04.2011, set aside the order of the learned Trial Court, acquitting the accused - applicants under Sec. 256 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the learned Trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law.