DIPIKA VINODRAI MARU Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.PC for quashment of the FIR being 11203008210032/ 2021 registered with Bilkha Police Station, Junagadh for the offence punishable under Sec. 504, 506(2) 507, 114 of IPC stating the offence, which is alleged to have been committed from the period 25/11/2020 to 18/11/2020 as per the case of the complainant, in the impugned FIR is that the marriage of the first informant was solemnized with accused no.1 and prior to 5 years from the date of marriage, the accused no.1 was engaged to accused no.2 i.e the present applicant. Somehow, the marriage was not solemnized and accused no.1 got married to the complainant. As per the allegations, the dispute arose between the husband and wife and she was thrown out from the matrimonial house and therefore, complainant filed application under sec. 125 of CrPC. It is contended in the FIR that despite the order of maintenance was passed, the husband never paid the amount which is ordered by the learned Family Court and has started living with the present applicant in live in relationship agreement. On 30/11/2020, the complainant received a call from the mobile of the present applicant informing that she may give divorce to the accused no.1 or could face dire consequences. Again, on 7.24 hours, the brother of the applicant no.1 i.e applicant no.2 has called and similar threats were issued to her. Thereafter, she received calls from different four numbers and in all four calls she received abusive language and inquiring regarding the family of the complainant. With the above allegations, the complaint came to be lodged on 2/4/2021, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Rohit Verma for the applicant and learned advocate Ms.Avani Patel for the complainant and Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the respondent-State.

(3.) Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines governing the exercise of inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are reproduced hereinbelow: