Gujarat High Court
Chhayaben Chhatrtasinh Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 26 August, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8261/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 8261 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
CHHAYABEN CHHATRTASINH BAROT & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. KALRAV R PATEL(7041) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS. NILI K PATEL(7043) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR SAMIR AFZAL KHAN(3733) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. CHETNABEN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 26/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR being C.R. No.I-11191008230304/2023 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR PARESH J SOMPURA(HC00451) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:10:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8261/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined Sections 498A, 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The root of the dispute is matrimonial dispute between respondent No.2 and her husband. Present petitioners are mother- in-law and sister-in-law respectively of respondent No.2.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that even if allegations made in the FIR are perused, the same would not constitute an offence, but general ware and tare of matrimonial life.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that at present matrimonial home is purchased in the name of respondent No.2 and entire amount of the consideration has been paid by husband and even today, monthly installment towards house loan is also paid by husband, yet respondent No.2 has managed to drive out family members of the petitioners, who are now residing in rented premise.
5. Learned Advocate has submitted that respondent No.2 is well qualified and working woman and therefore, is taking advantage of the proceedings to settle her matrimonial dispute with the son of Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR PARESH J SOMPURA(HC00451) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:10:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8261/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined present petitioner No.1.
6. Learned Advocate for the respondent has vehemently objected to grant of petition and submitted that ingredients of offence under Section 498A are clearly made out, as it is at the behest of present petitioners that husband was misconducting with respondent No.2.
7. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that FIR being C.R. No.I-11191008230304/2023 came to be registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. The Court has perused contents of FIR and it appears that marriage had taken on 26-02-2019 and thereafter, that to out of love relationship between respondent No.2 and son of petitioner No.1, which was later on agreed by both the sides and marriage has taken place.
9. From the allegations made in the FIR, only act attributed to the petitioners is to taunt wife for not carrying out work in time Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR PARESH J SOMPURA(HC00451) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:10:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8261/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/08/2025 undefined and not able to balance between her working life and family life.
10. To the Court, it appears that root cause is transaction of amount of Rs.60,000/- between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 being Sister-in-law of respondent No.2. Amount of Rs.60,000/-, which was lent by respondent No.2 was not returned by petitioner No.2 and that appears to have triggered for filing of the present FIR.
11. Considering the fact that allegations made are general in nature with no specific act attributed to the petitioners, case of the petitioners deserves consideration and FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside.
12. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R. No.I-11191008230304/2023 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad, is ordered to be quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) PARESH SOMPURA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR PARESH J SOMPURA(HC00451) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:10:39 IST 2025