SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
1. The present application is filed for seeking following reliefs:
“(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being Criminal Misc. Application No. 232 of 2017 filed under the Domestic Violence Act pending in the Court of Ld. 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Navsari, in the interest of justice;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Criminal Misc. Application No.232 of 2017 under the Domestic Violence Act pending in the Court of Ld. 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Navsari, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;”
2. Brief facts as per the case of the applicants in this application are as such that the respondent no.2- complainant in the complaint is that the respondent no.2 herein was married to applicant no.1 herein as per Hindu rites and rituals on 4.2.2014 at Maroli, Jalalpor. It is alleged in the complaint, that immediately after the marriage, the mother-in-law and the applicant no.4 herein started harassing the respondent no.2 herein. There are various allegations levelled in the complaint, as regards the respondent no.2 and family being made to know the wrong facts as regards the applicants herein and that even the applicants had made dowry demand and harassing the respondent no.2 herein. It is also stated in the complaint that the complainant accompanied the applicant no.1 on 24.3.2014 to United Kingdom and resided with applicant no.1- husband at United Kingdom. Further, it is also stated in the complaint that out of the said wedlock, child viz. Shiven was born at United Kingdom. It is further alleged that when the applicant no.3 had visited with deceased mother-in-law of respondent no.2 herein at United Kingdom, the respondent no.2 was also harassed by them. Further, it is stated in the complaint that on 3.9.2014, the mother and applicant no.3 herein returned to India and the applicant no.1 along with the applicant no.4 herein, the respondent no.2 herein and the minor son came to India on 18.10.2015. It is further stated in the complaint that after return to India, various disputes cropped up. Furthermore, it is further stated in the complaint that the respondent no.2 along with minor son was forcibly driven out by the applicants from their house and thereafter, the respondent no.2 resided at her parental home. Furthermore, it is further alleged that various threats were also administered on respondent no.2 herein. It is no.3 is the brother-in-law, applicant no.4 is the sister-in-law of respondent no.2, while applicant no.5 and 6 are the uncle and aunt of applicant no.1, who are residing separately. Further, pursuant to the said complaint being forwarded to the court of Ld. Magistrate, the Ld. 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Navsari vide order dated 23.11.2017 was pleased to issue notice upon the present applicants, calling upon the applicants to remain present on the next date of hearing. Initially, the application was made to protection officer on 22.11.2017, which was forwarded to the Court of Ld. Magistrate and the process was issued upon the applicants on 23.11.2017. Hence this application is preferred.
3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Adil Mirza, representing the applicants, Ms. Sonal Vyas, learned counsel, represent the respondent No.2 – complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, representing the respondent No.1 – State.
4. Ms. Sonal Vyas, learned counsel, represent the respondent No.2 – complainant has submitted that pursis for withdrawal of the proceedings before the trial court is filed before the trial court concerned and the matter is now placed before the Lok Adalat.
5. In view of the above, prayers made in the present application would not survive and therefore, the present application has become infructuous. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing this application in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus -
“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch.XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art.226 or the inherent powers under sec.482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec.155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under sec.156(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
6. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of as having become infructuous. Notice stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated.
