Gujarat High Court
Dadubhai Fulabhai Khachar vs Dayaben W/O Hareshbhai Dadubhai ... on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14834/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14834 of 2014
==========================================================
DADUBHAI FULABHAI KHACHAR & ORS.
Versus
DAYABEN W/O HARESHBHAI DADUBHAI KHACHAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P B KHANDHERIA(5228) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:-
A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present application preferred by applicants under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by quashing F.I.R No. 1st 18 of 2014 all the proceedings arising thereto lodged by opponent no.1 against the applicants with Barvala City Police Station, Botad, along with all the prior and subsequent proceedings thereto qua present Applicants. A copy thereof figures at Annexure "A" to the present application.
B. Pending admission, disposal and final hearing of the above numbered criminal miscellaneous application, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings of F.I.R No. 1st 18 of 2014 lodged by opponent no.1 against the present applicants with Barvala City Police Station, Botad along with all the prior and subsequent proceedings thereto qua present Applicants;"Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14834/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined
2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: The complainant, Dayaben, was married to Hareshbhai Dadubhai Khachar on 22.02.2008 as per caste customs and began residing with her husband and his family at Khambhrada, Taluka Barwala, District Ahmedabad. The couple was blessed with a daughter, Rinal. However, within a few months, her husband committed suicide. After his death, the complainant alleges that her in-laws, namely her mother-in-law Baibaben, father-in-law Dadubhai, brother-in-law Narendrabhai, and sister-in-law Kailasben, subjected her to ill-treatment, dispossessed her from the matrimonial home, and denied her and her minor daughter any rights of residence or sustenance.
2.1. It is further the grievance of the complainant that her stridhan, wedding gifts, and personal belongings were misappropriated by the accused family members who not only refused to return the same despite repeated demands but also threatened her with dire consequences if she attempted to assert her lawful rights. The complainant states that repeated efforts of reconciliation through her maternal uncle and community leaders have failed. She, therefore, imputes criminal liability upon her in-laws for wrongful dispossession, misappropriation of her articles, and threats to her life and liberty.
3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently urged that the impugned FIR, even upon a bare perusal, does not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, much less the grave offences alleged therein. The factual matrix, as delineated from the record, is utterly devoid of any indica of a dishonest or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioners.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14834/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined Shorn of embellishments, the allegations appear to be nothing more than an outgrowth of matrimonial discord, which, by a strained and artificial effort, have been sought to be clothed with the trappings of criminality so as to harass and exert undue pressure upon the petitioners.
3.1. It is further contended by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the husband of the complainant had expired in the year 2010, whereafter the complainant, having left the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter, instituted a Regular Civil Suit being Civil Suit No.53 of 2012, seeking identical reliefs pertaining to recovery of stridhan. The said civil proceedings, after due adjudication, came to be disposed of by the learned Civil Court on 08.02.2018. It is only thereafter, as an afterthought, that the complainant has chosen to lodge the present FIR, thereby manifestly abusing the process of law.
3.2. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners has fervently urged this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash the impugned FIR, so as to prevent miscarriage of justice.
4. Per contra, learned APP has submitted that the investigation in the present matter stands concluded and a charge sheet has been filed against the accused-petitioner. It is further contended that in view of the completed investigation, a prima facie case is discernible against the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition may be dismissed.
5. It is, however, noteworthy that the FIR in question was lodged Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14834/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined on 18.04.2014. The FIR narrates that the complainant was married to Hareshbhai Dadubhai Khachar on 22.02.2008. Soon thereafter, the complainant became pregnant and subsequently delivered a daughter. It is alleged that she returned to her parental home following the purported suicide of her husband and that she was subjected to physical and mental harassment at the hands of her in- laws, who allegedly appropriated her stridhan, including cash and gold, and compelled her to vacate the matrimonial home.
6. The identical factual milieu had earlier been raised in Civil Suit No. 53 of 2012, filed on 14.08.2012. Notably, the FIR is conspicuously silent regarding the existence of the civil proceedings. It appears that the investigating officer was unaware of the pendency of the civil suit, as the same was never brought to the notice of the investigating authority.
6.1. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that on 11.01.2011, a compromise was arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant, whereby the complainant acknowledged receipt of Rs. 6,50,000/- and 20 tola of gold, and expressly relinquished her claim over both movable and immovable property. Significantly, this compromise document is absent from the averments in the FIR.
6.2. The civil suit instituted by the complainant was adjudicated by the learned trial court, which, by its judgment and order dated 08.02.2019, rejected the claim of the complainant, holding that her assertions were not substantiated to its satisfaction.
6.3. In view of the prevenient ratiocination and the settled factual matrix, it is manifest that the FIR, being predicated on the same set Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14834/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined of averments, cannot subsist. The allegations made therein have, therefore, lost their legal vitality and the FIR is bereft of any credible foundation.
7. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the present petition is found to merit allowance.
8. Before parting with the order, it is necessary to advert to the conduct of Mr. K.N. Karangiya, the investigating officer at the relevant point of time, who has since retired. It is noted that a bailable warrant was issued against him by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2025. The concerned Superintendent of Police was duly informed to take cognizance of the officer's conduct. Despite service of the bailable warrant, with a surety of Rs. 10,000/-, Mr. Karangiya failed to appear before this Court. Regrettably, the Superintendent of Police did not take appropriate action at the time, leaving the Court constrained to proceed ex parte on 25.08.2025.
8.1. Subsequently, the SP, Botad submitted a report tendering apology and confirmed that the conduct of the officer had been taken seriously. It is observed that Mr. Karangiya, fully aware of the implications of the bailable warrant, failed to present himself before the Court and treated the process with evident nonchalance. As per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Botad, the warrant had been duly served upon him.
9. Today, Mr. Karangiya has appeared before this Court but has been unable to furnish any justification for his non-compliance, save for asserting that he is no longer the investigating officer.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14834/2014 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined
10. Be that as it may, the conduct of Mr. Karangiya, an ex-police officer, is hereby deprecated. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon him for willful non- compliance with the bailable warrant of this Court.
11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition is ALLOWED, and the rule is made absolute.
12. Mr. K.N. Karangiya, ex-police officer, is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 5,000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Botad, within fifteen days from the date of this order, and place on record a copy of the receipt in the petition.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:10 IST 2025