ATULBHAI DEVCHAND PATEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail. The applicant No.1 is the father and the applicant No.2 is the mother of Hitesh. Their son married the complainant Dharati in the month of June, 2003. At the time of the marriage, their son and daughter-in-law were residing in a joint family initially. Initially, relations between their son and their daughter-in-law were very cordial. However, thereafter, there were frequent domestic quarrels between their son and daughter-in-law. Thereafter, their daughter-in-law started going to her parents place at Baroda and she used to reside there for a long period of time. When the settlement talks were held, their daughter-in-law insisted that she wanted a separate residence and did not want to stay with her in-laws in the joint family. This request was acceded to by the applicant Nos.1 and 2 and they shifted their son and daughter-in-law to new house. Inspite of that the domestic quarrels between the two did not stop.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants that a false and vexatious complaint has been filed by the complainant. The sequence of events and change in the statements which were made by the complainant itself indicates falsity of the case. It is submitted that, initially, a complaint was lodged that her husband had administered liquid and, thereafter, in the subsequent statement it is stated that the present applicants were also responsible for forcible administration of poison to her. It is an admitted position that the complainant was discharged on the next day and she had not made any complaint about forcible administration of poison to her. On the contrary, she had stated that she had travel sickness and that she had brought some tablets from Baroda from her parents' house which she had consumed. This clearly indicates that the present complaint has been lodged against the present applicants vexatiously and in order to harass and threaten the present applicants. Even otherwise, the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which is registered against the present applicants, prima facie, also does not appear to have been made out. The complainant was discharged immediately on the next day. There is no material on record to indicate that what was vomitted by the applicant was a poisonous substance or that there was an attempt to commit murder.