Gujarat High Court
Gautami Sandeep Sonara Wife Of Sandeep ... vs State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4102/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4102 of 2021
==========================================================
GAUTAMI SANDEEP SONARA WIFE OF SANDEEP SONARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHUBHAM JHAJHARIA(10231) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. KIRTAN H MISTRY(10012) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR.NISARG P RAVAL(7262) 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 : 10/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
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.11191030210020 registered with Ahmedabad City Western Mahila Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(2), 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that as per FIR the petitioner is paramour of husband of complainant. Learned advocate for the applicant takes this Court through relevant allegations in the FIR and submits that except allegations that the petitioner was in relationship with husband of the complainant, there is no other allegations levelled against Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:18:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4102/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the petitioner. Learned advocate for the applicant having referred to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.Suvetha v/s. State by Inspector of Police [2009 (6) SCC 757] and in the case of Dechamma I.M.@ Dechamma Koushik v/s. State of Karanataka [2024(0) INSC 972] would submit that term relative of husband of woman does not include girl-friend as relative of husband of woman. He would submit that word relative brings within purview of status and such status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. In the present case, petitioner is not relative of husband of woman and provision of section 498(A) would not be attracted.
2.1. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to allow the application.
3. Learned advocate for private respondent submits that apart from section 498(A) of IPC, allegations of offence under section 406, 506(2), 114 of IPC are made in the FIR. It is submitted that since necessary ingredient are found from the FIR, it is submitted not to quash the FIR and submitted to dismiss the application.
4. Learned APP, in the peculiar facts of the case, requests to pass necessary orders.
5. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides, perused record as well as authority cited at bar. It is noticed that the petitioner is alleged to be girl-friend of the husband of the complainant. No status has been align with the petitioner. Learned APP who argued to disallow the application, could not Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:18:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4102/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined found any relationship of petitioner with husband of complainant, except she being girl-friend of the husband.
6. Examined the allegations levelled in the FIR, which indicates that apart from petitioner being girl-friend of husband of complainant, no other relative has been align to her. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dechamma I.M. Koushik (supra) having referring to judgment in the case of U.Suvetha (supra), held in para 8 to 10 as under :-
"8. This Court, in the case of U. Suvetha (supra), had an occasion to consider a question as to whether the girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage would be a "relative of the husband" for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A of IPC.
9. This Court, after considering the earlier judgments of this Court and the dictionary meaning of a relative, observed thus:-
"18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a "relative". The word "relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise."
10. It could thus be seen that this Court has, in unequivocal terms, held that a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative."
7. Apart from above material placed on record by way of FIR as well as charge-sheet, no other offence alleged in the FIR attract essential ingredients of sections 406, 506(2), 114 of IPC Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:18:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4102/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined are missing in absence of documentary evidence supporting case of complainant. In this circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to face rigmarole of the trial.
8. In view of above, present petition is partly allowed. FIR being C.R.No.11191030210020 registered with Ahmedabad City Western Mahila Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 506(2), 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:18:53 IST 2025