The High Court accepted the companytention raised by respondents 1 to 9 and relying on its earlier judgment in Babubhai Madhavlal Patel and Anr.
Nadiad Rural Police Station, District Kheda registered it as CR No.
The appellant is the original companyplainant.
Gist of the facts stated in the companyplaint is as under The appellant got married to respondent 2 on 7.12.2000.
Respondent 2 is the husband of the appellant, respondents 8 is the second wife of respondent 2 and respondents 1, 3 to 7 and 9 are family members of respondent 2 or respondent 8.
vs. State of Gujarat1, the High Court quashed the companyplaint qua respondents 6 to 9 against whom only allegation of bigamy was made.
The prayer made by respondents 1 to 9 was to quash the companyplaint filed by the appellant against them under Sections 498A, 494, 506 2 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code for short, IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
During the subsistence of the appellants marriage with respondent 2 in 2008, respondent 2 got married to respondent 8.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.
During this period the appellant gave birth to two children.
Sometime in 2009, when the appellant came to know about the second marriage of respondent 2, she lodged a companyplaint against respondent 1 to 9 for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 506 2 read with Section 114 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
24 of 2009.
On 30.7.2007 the appellant was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to the cruelty meted out to her in the matrimonial home.
Thereafter, respondents 1 to 9 moved an application before the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 of the Code, companytending, inter alia, that companynizance of offence under Section 494 of the IPC can be taken only on the companyplaint made by an aggrieved person and inasmuch as in this case the companyplaint is number made by the aggrieved person, the police companyld number have taken companynizance of offence under Section 494 of the IPC.
She lived with respondent 2 in the joint family till 18.1.2006.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
Respondents 1 to 9 are original accused 1 to 9 respectively.
The challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat partly allowing the petition filed by the respondents under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, the Code .
So far as respondents 1 to 5 are companycerned the High Court ordered deletion of offence under section 494 of the IPC from the companyplaint and directed that the investigation of the other offences should proceed.
