SANGEET HARIDWARILAL SOROUT Vs. SAPNASINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the First Information Report (FIR) being C.R.No.I-21/2017 registered with Mahila Police Station (West), Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 313, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The informant i.e. respondent No.1 herein has lodged the aforesaid FIR against seven persons which includes her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the present applicants. According to the complainant, she had married with original accused No.1 Chandrashekhar Hariwarilal Sorout as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals on 8th April 2014. During the marriage ceremony, ornaments and other articles to the tune of Rs.40 Lakhs were given. It is alleged that all the accused were residing in a joint family. That husband of the complainant has demanded dowry of Rs.15 Lakhs and he has also beaten her and abused her. It is alleged that at the instigation of the present applicants, the husband has beaten the complainant and subjected her to cruelty. It is alleged that the father of the applicants no.1 to 3 is running school and for renovation of the same, has demanded Rs.15 Lakhs. According to the complainant, two times abortion was carried out forcibly upon her. It is also alleged that she is residing at her parental home since 8th April 2017. On all these grounds, the aforesaid FIR has been lodged.

(3.) The respondent No.1 original complainant has filed the affidavit-in-reply wherein she has stated that the applicants started harassing her and demanded dowry within one week from the date of marriage. It is also stated that the applicants are money minded and greedy by nature and within one week from the date of marriage, the husband of the complainant along with the applicants demanded Rs.15 Lakhs and informed her to get money from her father. It is stated that the applicants are habituated of using vulgar and abusive language and they connived with each other and instigated her husband with an intention to harass her. It is stated that the husband of the complainant is habitual in consuming alcohol and one day he returned home in drunken condition and assaulted her with saving blade. It is stated that the complainant was not permitted to meet the guest, who came at her place and she was forced to live the life of a servant. According to her version, the applicants threatened her to face dire consequences if, at all, she had disclosed the fact of terror and torture exercised on her to anyone else.