Gujarat High Court
Manish Vinaychandrabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 10658 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MANISH VINAYCHANDRABHAI RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present application is filed under section 482 of Cr.PC for quashment of the FIR being 11203008210032/ 2021 registered with Bilkha Police Station, Junagadh for the offence punishable under section 504, 506(2) 507, 114 of IPC stating the offence, which is alleged to have been committed from the period 25.11.2020 to 18.11.2020 as per the case of the complainant, in the impugned FIR is that the marriage of the first informant Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:18:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined was solemnized with accused no.1 and prior to 5 years from the date of marriage, the accused no.1 was engaged to accused no.2. Somehow, the marriage was not solemnized and accused no.1 got married to the complainant. As per the allegations, the dispute arose between the husband and wife and she was thrown out from the matrimonial house and therefore, complainant filed application under section 125 of CrPC. It is contended in the FIR that despite the order of maintenance was passed, the husband never paid the amount which is ordered by the learned Family Court and has started living with the accused no.2 in live in relationship agreement. On 30.11.2020, the complainant received a call from the mobile of the accused no.2 informing that she may give divorce to the accused no.1 or would face dire consequences. Again, on 7.24 hours, the brother of the applicant no.1 i.e applicant no.2 has called and similar threats were issued to her. Thereafter, she received calls from different four numbers and in all four calls she received abusive language and inquiring regarding the family of the complainant. With the above allegations, the complaint came to be lodged on Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:18:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined 02.04.2021, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
1.1. The present applicant was arraigned as accused no.1, who is the husband of complainant, the allegations made against the present applicant is that dispite the order of maintenance which is passed granting Rs.11,000/- monthly, the applicant, except for once did not pay thereafter and has started to live in with accused no.2 in live-in relationship and thereafter, issued threats to the complainant.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia for the applicant and Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the respondent-State. Rule is served, no one is appearing on behalf of the complainant though she appeared in matter of the co-accused being Cr.M.A. No.10670/2021 through an advocate.
2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia submits that the present applicant has filed the divorce petition on 17.03.2021 which is ultimately decreed on 30.12.2025 against which the complainant filed appeal before this Court. It is submitted that the complainant has started harassing the present applicant by creating a group Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:18:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined wherein, father of the applicant and other relatives were joined and thereafter, started posting abusive messages. It is submitted that the present applicant filed complaint against the original complainant respondent no.2 on 28.06.2022 for the offence punishable under section 500, 501, 506(2) as well as the sister of present applicant has also lodged FIR being 76 of 2020 for the same offence. It is submitted that as a counter blast this FIR was filed after a delay of 5 months without specifying the time and against the applicant. Learned advocate also relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Diyalbhai Lavjibhai Mathodiya Vs State of Gujarat reported in 2026 (0) AIJEL-HC 253092 and submitted that continuation of process against the present applicant is abuse of process of law as the ingredients of none of the sections are satisfied and in that background the impugned FIR requires to be quashed by allowing this application.
2.2. Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval has submitted that the investigation is yet not concluded therefore, no interference is called for at this stage and though Rule is served, no one has appeared representing respondent Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:18:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined no.2.
3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the guidelines governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:18:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
4. The question arising for consideration before this Court is whether the case of the present applicant falls under any of the criteria mentioned in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra)?
Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:18:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined 4.1. To determine the above question, if one would refer the allegations made in the FIR, it emerges that the present applicant has lodged the complaint against the respondent no.2 on 28.06.2020 as well as the sister of the present applicant has also lodged FIR 07.06.2020. It also emerges from the record that though allegations are made against the applicant that except for one occasion the applicant has not paid amount of maintenance however, the receipt annexed with the memo of petition suggests that Rs.1,50,000/- is deposited on 01.10.2019 Rs.50,000/- is deposited on 30.11.2019 and it is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia, upon instruction, that the applicant is regularly paying the maintenance amount which is ordered by the learned Family Court. Even otherwise, the allegation made against the present applicant does not pertain to issuing the threats directly to complainant however, he has issued threats to accused no.2 and 3 against which this Court has allowed the application and the FIR is quashed in Cr.M.A No. 10670/2021.
4.2. Considering the entire background of events, the FIR appears to be concocted and same would fall under Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:18:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Criteria (i)(v) from the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). In that background sending the applicants for trial is unwarranted for and the ingredients of section 504, 506(2) 507, 114 are not satisfied. Therefore, impugned FIR deserves to quashed as the same would amount to abuse of process of law.
5. Resultantly, the present application is allowed. The FIR being 11203008210032/ 2021 registered with Bilkha Police Station, Junagadh as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 01:18:23 IST 2026