NAVENDU SUDHIR GUPTA Vs. HONEY NAVENDU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition invokes our inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash a First Information Report bearing No.3/2023 dtd. 11/1/2023 registered against the Petitioner as Accused No.1 and against one Bashir Ahmad as Accused No.2, at the Porvorim Police Station, for offences alleged to have been committed by the Accused under Sec. 354-D read with Sec. 34 IPC; subsequent to filing the Charge-sheet/Final Report bearing No.64/2023 on 6/11/2023, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa, under Ss. 354-D, 120-B r/w Sec. 34 IPC, the same was also challenged in this petition.

(2.) We have heard learned Advocate Shri Shailesh Kantharia for the Petitioner, Shri Nikhil Vaze, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.2 and Shri Vithal Naik under the Legal Aid Scheme for the Original Complainant, Respondent No.1. In our order of 18/10/2023, it was noted that Respondent No.1 Complainant was duly served and was present before the Court on 21/8/2023 when she sought two weeks' time to engage an Advocate but was neither present on 18/10/2023 in person or through her Advocate when the matter was called out. The order further notes that on 25/9/2023, the parties were put to notice that this petition would be disposed of finally at the admission stage on 18/10/2023 and accordingly, since the Respondent No.1 had not put in any appearance, the Goa State Legal Services Authority was requested to appoint Legal Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent No.1. Learned Shri Vithal Naik, Advocate was then appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme to defend the interests of the Complainant.

(3.) It is the Petitioner's contention that on a plain reading of the complaint dtd. 10/01/2023 which was recorded as the F.I.R., the allegations do not disclose the commission of any offence of stalking against the Petitioner, punishable under Sec. 354-D of the IPC. It is further the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the ingredients of Sec. 354-D of the IPC in the form of allegations specific to the Petitioner are not disclosed in the complaint and the complaint is false and lodged only to vent the complainant's anger against the Petitioner due to their matrimonial discontent. Admittedly the complainant is the wife of the Petitioner and the two had been estranged since 2016.