Court: Gujarat High Court
Bench: JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Vinodbhai vs State on 21 September, 2010
Complainant Left The Company 14 Years Back of the Accused, Continuting 498A is Abuse of Process of Law
Petitioners are common in both the petitions. Original complainant, respondent No.2 is also common. Petitioner No.1 is the brother of husband of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is his wife. So far as the facts of Criminal Misc. Application No.8541 of 2003 is concerned, Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint before Gandhigram police station alleging offence punishable undersection 498A, 506, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and younger brother of the husband. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted its report dated 5.9.02 before the learned Magistrate and requested for grant of ‘B’ summary. The learned Magistrate, however, by the impugned order dated 29.9.03 ordered inquiry under section of the Criminal Procedure Code and permitted the complainant to produce her witnesses before the Court.
Similarly in Criminal Misc. Application No.8542 of 2003, the complainant had filed a complaint before the complaint dated 3.8.02, alleging offences punishable under section 324, 323 read with resection 114 of the IPC, in which also, the police filed a report for ‘B’ summary. The learned Magistrate, however, for similar reasons decided to hold inquiry under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the impugned order dated 29.9.03.
Though served, no one appears for respondent No.2.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State and having perused the documents on record, I find that the learned Magistrate has not recorded proper reasons for not accepting ‘B’ summary in both the cases. The reports of the police suggested that the complainant and her witnesses were not ready to give their statements though sufficient effort was made. I have also perused the nature of allegations made in the complaints and the police report. From the record it also emerges that the complainant had left the house of her husband nearly 14 years back and has been residing with her family separately.
Considering all these aspects and also considering that the complaints are of the year 2002, permitting further inquiry into such allegations would result into abuse of process of law. I am of the opinion that orders are required to be set aside.
Taking overall view of the matter, both the orders dated 29.9.2003 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.R.No.I-258/02 and C.R.No.I-266/02 registered at Gandhigram Police Station are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.