Gujarat High Court
Chetanbhai Hasmukhbhai Pilot ... vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 21147 of 2021
==========================================================
CHETANBHAI HASMUKHBHAI PILOT (PETITION DISMISSED AS
WITHDRAWN) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4
PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR MANAN MAHETA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP Mr.Maheta waives service of notice of
Rule for the State respondents.
1.1 By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), the applicant seeks
quashing of the FIR registered as CR No.11822012212119 of
2021 registered with Gandevi Police Station, Navsari,
chargesheet thereunder and Criminal Case No.4827 of 2021
pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gandevi for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and
5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and further proceedings arising
therefrom.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1 It is the case of the complainant that she married to
petitioner No.1 in the year 2012 and out of her marriage life, she
gave birth to a daughter, who is eight years old. It is her case
that her husband is not doing any work and she is maintaining
the expenses of the family. It is the case of the complainant that
her in-laws gave her mental and physical torture and her
husband demand dowry from the complainant. It is the case of
the complainant quarrels took place between the complainant
and her husband. Thereafter, the complainant filed the FIR in
question against the accused persons. Hence, the present
petition.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tanmay Karia appearing for the
petitioners and learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta appearing for the
State respondents.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Tanmay Karia appearing for the
petitioners seeking quashment of the questioned FIR would
submit that the petition qua the petitioner No.1 - husband is
dismissed as not pressed pursuant to order dated 02.12.2021
passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court. He would further
submit that petitioner No.3 was father-in-law of the complainant
and during the pendency of the petition, he has expired. Learned
advocate Mr.Karia would further submit that petitioner No.2 is
mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is sister-in-law of the
complainant. After narrating relationship and the facts, learned
advocate Mr.Karia refers to the FIR and submitted that general
and specious allegations are levelled against the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
whereby marriage span is more than nine years between the
parties and they were living as happily married couple for nine
years and the complainant gave birth to a girl child. He would
further submit that two incidents are stated in the FIR to allege
that offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act are committed by the petitioners. Referring to
those incidents, he would submit that general allegations of
extending taunts and to cause mental and physical cruelty is
stated. Except that there is no other allegation levelled. Learned
advocate Mr.Karia would further submit that in order to
constitute the offence under Section 323 or 504 of IPC, the
essential ingredients of causing hurt or criminal intimidation are
lacking. He would further submit that essential ingredients of
Section 504 of IPC that intention insult with intent to provoke
breach of peace are completely missing in the FIR and therefore,
FIR is found to be malicious, vexatious and abuse of process of
law, may not be permitted to converting to trial against the
petitioner.
4.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Karia
submits to quash the impugned FIR and subsequent
proceedings.
5. Respondent No.3 - original complainant though served did
not remain present to contest the petition.
6. Learned APP Mr.Maheta having referred to the chargesheet
papers would submit that sufficient evidence is available to
frame charge against the petitioners. He would submit that the
arguments canvassed by learned advocate for the petitioners can
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
be tested during the trial, however, at this juncture at threshold
the FIR and all consequential proceedings should not be scuttled
or quashed by allowing this petition. Hence, he submits to
dismiss this petition.
7. Regarding being had to the rival submissions made by
learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, I may refer to
relevant portion of the FIR to understand the crux :
"On 25/03/2021, my husband, mother-in-law, father-in-
law and my husband's sister Chetanaben taunted me on
the pretext of house chore work and were mentally
harassing me. Therefore, when I told my father-in-law
about me going to my maternal house, my mother-in-law
and my father-in-law did not allow me to go and my
husband's sister Chetnaben, mother-in-law and father-
in-law quarreled with me and thrashed me in collusion
with each other. At that time, my husband Chetan told
me that, "you go to your father's house and bring two
lakhs rupees, I am taking you and the daughter to your
maternal house." After stating this, my husband Chetan
took me and my daughter to my maternal house at
Gandeva. After dropping me and the daughter Dhyeya at
my maternal house at Gandeva, my husband Chetan
told me to bring two lakhs rupees when I return to his
house at Vadodara and after saying this, he left our
house.
On 21/06/2021, when I was on my duty at Vadodara,
my brother Dhruminbhai phone called me and told me
that, "your husband's sister Chetanaben came to our
house at around 01/30 hours in the afternoon and started
talking to Dhyeya. As Chetanben is the aunt, my mother
did note object and allowed her to meet. After some time,
as Chetanaben came to know that there is no one in the
house except Dhyeya and my mother, she pulled
Dhyeya's hand and was trying to take Dhyeya with her
forcefully saying, "come with me I am here to take you to
home". Meanwhile, as I came back to the house to dine, I
rebuked Chetanaben and her friend. Therefore, she
quarreled with me and left from there." Such fact was told
by my brother Dhrumin over the phone.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
Thereafter, on 22/06/2021, at about six o'clock in
the evening, after leaving Vadodara, as I was returning
to my home at Gandeva, my brother Dhruminbhai phone
called me and told me that, "your husband's sister
Chetanaben, your husband Chetanbhai and your
mother-in-law Bhanuben have come to our house with
Abhayam team. There were two women and one man in
the Abhayam team and they also told me that, you have
confined the daughter Dhyeya. After telling this, they
asked Dhyeya, if she wants to meet her father, aunt or
grand mother or if she wants to go with them. At that
time, Dhyeya refused them and told that she wants to
stay at her mother and uncle's house. Therefore, the
Abhayam team left from there." I have been using both
my SIM cards i.e. JIO Company SIM No.87807 73007
and other Airtel card 96625 34388 since last nine years.
These two SIM cards are linked with my collage papers
data, my bank account and also to my google pay
account. These SIM cards were deactivated by my
husband and father-in-law at 11/52 hours on
22/06/2021. Thereafter, these two numbers were
renewed, information of the same was received by me by
text message. On 23/06/2021, my mother saw
wahtsapp status of my mobile number on her mobile
phone, which was showing ON. Therefore, I made
whatsapp call on the same, it was received by my
husband's sister Chetnaben. As I said hello, Chetanaben
disconnected the phone. As I got suspicious, I tried
opening my google pay account and came to know that
my google pay account was deactivated by my husband,
my husband's sister and my father-in-law. Therefore, I
was compelled to change the passwords of my other e-
mail wherein my college student's papers are stored,
because I feared that the same might be misused. On
27/06/2021, a meeting was held by our community
regarding this matter wherein he admitted that they
deactivated these SIM cards and agreed to return these
SIM cards, but have not return the SIM cards. My
husband Chetanbhai and my husband's sister
Chetanaben used to come to my house at Gandeva and
used to quarrel with my family members and in this
manner used to physically and mentally harass my
family. Therefore, my husband Chetanbhai, my mother-
in-law Bhanuben, my father-in-law Hasmukhbhai and
my husband's sister Chetanaben has been harassing
me till today by frequently giving me physical and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
mental torture, thrashing me and hurling verbal abuses
towards me, taunting me for faint reasons and by
demanding dowry of two lakhs rupees from me."
8. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh
- 2012 (10) SCC 741, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
under :-
"20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an
apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of
G.V. Rao V/s. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3
SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this
Court had held that the High Court should have quashed
the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute
wherein all family members had been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside.
Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely
agree that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to
settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes
in which elders of the family are also involved with the
result that those who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their
being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are
many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose
their "young" days in chasing their cases in different
courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was
that the courts would not encourage such disputes.
21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in
the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana &
Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the
object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section
498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture
to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
husband. Section 498A was added with a view to
punish the husband and his relatives who harass or
torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful
demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated
by the wife under Section 498A against the husband
and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her
disputes with her husband and his relatives and the
wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to
exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be
proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier.
Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice
quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C.
would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.
It would however be a different matter depending upon
the facts and circumstances of each case whether to
exercise or not to exercise such a power.
*** *** ***
25. In the case at hand, when the brother and
unmarried sister of the principal accused Shyamji
Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing
the proceedings against them, inter-alia, on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on
the ground that no case was made out against them
under Sections 498A,/323/504/506 including
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the
legal duty of the High Court to examine whether
there were prima facie material against the
appellants so that they could be directed to undergo
the trial, besides the question of territorial
jurisdiction. The High Court seems to have
overlooked all the pleas that were raised and
rejected the petition on the solitary ground of
territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants
to approach the trial court."
9. Going by the facts of the present case, allegations levelled
in the FIR and given circumstances where essential elements of
offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and
5 of Dowry Prohibition Act are found missing. To establish the
offence under Section 498A, necessary averments are required to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
be made in the FIR is that the willful conduct of the petitioner or
accused of such a nature which likely to drive a woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health, regardless mental or physical, of the woman or the
harassment with a view to coerce or to any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand. These essential ingredients are
missing on plain reading of FIR and taking the allegations in its
entirely as correct. Learned APP failed to point out that injury
was caused to the complainant which could be termed as hurt
defined under Section 319 of IPC. None of the averments made
in the FIR state that the complainant was intentionally insulted
which may lead to provocation of breach of peace. In result
thereof, the petition at the behest of the mother-in-law and
sister-in-law is found to be part of the theory to implicate each
relative of the husband in the matter. Resultantly, this Court
finds that the FIR qua petitioners Nos.2 and 4 is abuse of the
process of law.
10. At this juncuture, I may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal &
ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the
code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the
F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence
and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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
S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.
(6) Where, there is an express legal bare engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the
institution 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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with malafide 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."
11. Applying the above ratio, the present petition is found to be
meritorious. The FIR in question and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed.
12. Hence, I pass the following order :
12.1 The petition is dismissed qua petitioner No.1 - Chetanbhai
Hasmukhbhai Pilot as per the order dated 02.12.2021
passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21147/2021 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
12.2 The petition qua petitioner No.3 - Hasmukhbhai Zaverbhai
Parmar has been abated as he has expired.
12.3 The petition qua petitioner Nos.2 - Bhanuben w/o.
Hasmukhbhai Parmar and petitioner No.4 - Chetnaben
d/o. Hasmukhbhai Parmar is hereby allowed. The
impugned FIR registered as CR No.11822012212119 of
2021 registered with Gandevi Police Station, Navsari,
chargesheet thereunder and Criminal Case No.4827 of
2021 pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gandevi for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code
as well as Sections 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
and further proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
quashed and set aside qua petitioner Nos.2 and 4 herein.
Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
12.4 Needless to state that any finding made hereinabove are
limited to quashment of the FIR and consequential
proceedings qua petitioner Nos.2 and 4 and shall not
influence the trial going on against the husband.
(J. C. DOSHI, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
