JAYESHBHAI L GANATRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of rule is waived by Mr. Parth Tolia, Ld. Advocate for the respondent no. 2 and Mr. Mehta, Ld. APP for the respondent no. 1 ­ State.

(2.) Heard Mr. Viral Dave, Ld. Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Parth Tolia, Ld. Advocate for the respondent no. 2 and Mr. Mehta, Ld. APP for the respondent no. 1 ­ State.

(3.) The petitioners herein are original accused, whereas the respondent no. 2 herein is original complainant. The complainant has filed one complaint for the offences punishable under sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506[2] and 114 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] before Mahila Police Station at Rajkot, being C.R. No. II -2/2013. In her complaint, she has stated that she is residing with the present petitioner no. 1 as his wife for last 7 years at the address disclosed in the complaint. However, it is also disclosed in the FIR that before such relation, she was married to one Rajendrakumar and out of such wedlock, she has three daughters and one son, who are aged between 14 and 19 years. It is also disclosed that her previous husband has expired in the year 2006 and thereafter, she married with the present petitioner no. 1 by exchanging garland. It is also alleged that even the petitioner no. 1 has divorced his first wife. So far as ingredients of offence for which complaint is filed are concerned, the only statement in the complaint is to the effect that the petitioner no. 1 has maintained good relationship with the complainant for sometime, but thereafter he was torturing her mentally and physically and abusing her and pressing her to earn money for him or to leave the house. It is also alleged that the petitioner no. 1 was abusing the daughters of the complainant from her first husband. So far as the petitioner no. 2, who is mother of the petitioner no. 1, is concerned, the complainant has alleged that being mother -in -law, she was also abusing her and asking her to go away from the house. Therefore, prima -facie it seems that this is a complaint for domestic violence, but in absence of any injury and instead of lodging complaint under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the complainant has lodged such FIR disclosing that it is under sections 498 -A, 323, 504 and more particularly section 506[2] of the IPC, so as to see that the petitioners are arrested and considering the practice at the relevant time, they may not be released on bail by the police and they have to rush to the Court. Prima -facie though it seems that this is a complaint by deserted wife against husband and mother -in -law for domestic violence, unfortunately the record shows that practically the respondent no. 2 wife is not only telling lie but taking disadvantage of her position and situation.