Gujarat High Court
Parul @ Parvati W / O Haresh Kanji vs State Of Gujarat on 16 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 12324 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PARUL @ PARVATI W / O HARESH KANJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH POOJARA for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.I - 29 of 2011 registered with Junagadh "B" Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 509, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has illicit relation with the husband of the deceased since long. Because of the illicit relationship, the deceased has written so many letters to the aggressors of the community, DSP / SP Junagadh, Collector, Junagadh complaining about the conduct of her husband and the petitioner and submitted that they are constantly harassing her and she was fed up of constant harassment. Because of continuous harassment being metered out to the deceased at the end of the petitioner and the husband of the deceased, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the complainant - father of the deceased has filed impugned FIR against the petitioner. Hence, present petition.
3. The argument of learned advocate Mr. DJ Bhatt for the petitioner is to the extent that the petitioner is the paramour of the husband of the deceased as per the allegations levelled in the FIR. He referred to the judgment in case of U.Suvetha Versus State By Inspector Of Police, 2009 (6) SCC 757 to contend that the girlfriend of the husband of the deceased is not a relative of a husband within the meaning of section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, he submits that since the law is settled on the issue, the petitioner who, according to the FIR, is the girlfriend of the husband of the deceased, cannot be put to charge for the offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC.
3.1 As far as charge of offence under section 306 read with section 509 of the IPC is concerned, it is submitted that the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined deceased was living in Junagadh and the petitioner lives in Rajkot. Both the places are at 100 km. He would further submit that no prayer is made in the FIR, which may set a base to level the allegation of instigation. He would further submit that there is no allegation on bare reading of the FIR that the petitioner has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He would further submit that illicit relationship is not an abetment within the meaning of section 107 read with section 306 of the IPC. He would further submit that plain reading of the FIR indicates that the petitioner has filed FIR against the deceased, pursuant to which she was arrested and kept behind the bar for 42 days. He would further submit that even if the contention is accepted as true and correct, reading of the FIR would not per se reason to commit suicide and as such does not fall within the definition of abetment.
3.2 In support of his argument, learned advocate for the petitioners referred to and relied upon judgment in case of Nipun Aneja Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh, Manu/SC/1099/ 24. 3.3 Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt would submit that availability of alternative remedy of filing revision under section 397 of the Code is no bar and not curtailing the discretionary remedy of this court under section 482 of the Code. To sustain this contention, he has referred and relied upon the judgment in the case of dash 3.4 Upon such submission, learned advocate for the petitioner requests the court to allow this petition by quashing Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined and setting aside the impugned FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Mahesh Poojara appearing for the private respondent takes this court through the relief claimed by the petitioner and submit that in the matter, charge sheet is already filed and the petitioner has not challenged filing of the charge sheet. Even the petitioner has not produced copy of the charge sheet papers in the matter. He would further submit that the petitioner remained silent on the aspect that the petitioner has preferred discharge application at Exh.17 in Sessions Case No.100 of 2011, whereby the learned Sessions Court has rejected the discharge application vide order dated 18th June 2013. He would further submit that discharge order has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings or in separate proceedings. In that event, he would submit that the petitioner cannot claim to quash the FIR.
4.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate, Mr. Poojara requests to dismiss this petition.
5. Learned APP, while adopting the arguments of learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara, would submit that several handwritten letters of the deceased are found during the investigation and they are placed in the char sheet. He would further submit that apart from that, a suicide note was also found. It is meticulous and indicates petitioner's role in the commission of the offence. He would further submit that so far as charge under section 498A of the IPC is concerned, it is always open for the learned trial court to vary the charge if Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined already framed, but only on this ground, charge of the offence under sections 309 and 509 of the IPC cannot be quashed. It is also submitted that during the investigation, it is found that the petitioner is in relation with the husband of the deceased and she meted constant harassment to the deceased. Therefore, ultimately, the deceased was fed up with that and committed suicide. The illicit relationship has been categorically stated in the suicide note along with name of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned APP requests that the petition does not survive and may be dismissed accordingly.
6. What is undeniable after hearing learned advocates for both the sides that the investigation has been carried out in the offence under sections 498A, 306 and 509 of the IPC in the FIR being C.R.No.I - 29 of 2011 registered with Junagadh "B" Division Police Station. The charge sheet was also filed at the end of the investigation. The petitioner is knowing fully well that the charge sheet is filed in the matter. The petitioner has also preferred discharge application in the matter, which ultimately resulted into an order of rejection by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh vide order dated 18th June 2013. The plain reading of the petition, averments and grounds mentioned therein, along with the prayer asked herein above, what could be noticed that the petitioner remained silent on the aspect of filing of the charge sheet as well as rejection of the discharge application filed by her. The petitioner claims relief to quash the FIR and also sessions case without reference of charge sheet filed in the matter and without placing any charge sheet papers on record. This kind Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined of petition therefore, cannot be survived. Moreover, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court declining discharge application of the petitioner vide order dated 18th June 2013, undisputedly is not challenged by the petitioner. Such judicial order passed by the competent court stayed and remained in force on the record and it is lie the maintainability of the petition. That the petitioner is girlfriend of the husband of the deceased. The investigation papers reveal that on multiple times, the deceased wrote letters to the aggressors of the community, DSP / SP Junagadh, Collector, Junagadh complaining about the conduct of her husband and the petitioner and submitted that they are constantly harassing her and she was fed up of constant harassment. The document, which can be treated as a suicide note collected during the investigation, reads as under:-
Valilben Karshanbhai Garchar Asopalav Society "RAM NIVAS"
Junagadh Respected Mother, Your daughter, Vali, is writing to you that..
I wish to inform you of the plight I have been enduring in my married life for the last 15 years. My husband harasses me severely. He has been harassing me physically and mentally for the past 3 years. He assaults me frequently. He is now threatening to kill me.
The said harassment continues to escalate. My life is in danger. The harassment is being inflicted by my husband, namely Karshan Maiya Garchar. The said harassment is also being caused by my father-in-law, Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined namely Maiyabhai Moolabhai Garchar; mother-in-law, namely Kamiben Maiyabhai Garchar; brothers-in-law, namely Alabhai Maiyabhai Garchar and Ramabhai Maiyabhai Garchar; and sisters-in-law, namely Sajanben Arunbhai Kodiyatar, Janaben Meramanbhai Kodiyatar, and Raiben Karshanbhai Muchhal. My brother-in-law, who is employed in the police department, frequently threatens me over phone calls and uses abusive language. He also threatens to come to Junagadh to kill, stating that I would not be able to take any action against him because his association with the police department.
Karshanbhai Nathabhai Muchhal is a resident of Char village and is employed in the police department at Veraval. Muchhal threatens me by misusing his contacts in the police department. These individuals are not allowing peace to be restored in my family life. They are attempting to separate me from my husband. They incite my husband. If anything happens to me, all the members of my in-laws' family mentioned above should be held equally responsible, along with my husband. They should be held accountable, and I kindly request that justice be served for the peace of my soul thereafter.
Vali Karshanbhai Garchar."
7. The aforesaid suicide note prima facie indicates that the deceased was fed up with the constant harassment and cruelty mated out to her. The petitioner being a girlfriend of the husband of the deceased has added her role to the extent of giving mental and physical harassment to the deceased, which can be noticeable in various letters written by the deceased, reference of which are made here in above. In the afore said circumstances and the reason, abridge of FIR now culminated into full-fledge trial by filing char sheet and taking cognizance by the learned trial court and framing of the Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined charge cannot be made. The allegations levelled in the FIR now are required to be decided during trial.
8. It is quite settled principle of law that this court at the time of deciding quashing petition cannot hold mini trial and to appreciate the evidence to hold the petitioner innocent. If material is available, it put the accused in trial.
9. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that power of quashing can be exercised very sparingly and that too in rarest of rare case. Relevant observations reads as under:-
"103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims or caprice."
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petition is bereft of merit as learned advocate Mr. DJ Bhatt has not made out any case for quashing the impugned FIR.
11. On perusal of the report tendered by the learned sessions Court, disturbing picture emerges. The sessions case was registered in 2011. No stay was operating in conducting the trial, and yet for no reason, the learned Sessions Court has not conducted the trial. The FIR is filed in 2011, whereby Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/12324/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2025 undefined cry of justice was made, but all these facts fell on deaf ears. Be that as it may, the learned Sessions Court to take up the matter and decide the same as early as possible. The learned Sessions Court shall frame the charge against the accused keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court against the petitioner and if the charge is already framed, it would be open for the learned Sessions Court to vary the charge.
12. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:50:49 IST 2025