Gujarat High Court

Babulal Maganlal Modi vs State Of Gujarat on 22 April, 2025

                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/14276/2016                              ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

                                                                                                          undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                           FIR/ORDER) NO. 14276 of 2016

                       ==========================================================
                                                 BABULAL MAGANLAL MODI & ANR.
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
                       MR MAHESH BHAVSAR(1781) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                       MR MANISH G JOSHI(2212) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                       NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MS. DIVYANGNA JHALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                        Date : 22/04/2025

                                                         ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners, original accused Nos. 1

and 2, being the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Respondent No.

3, seeking quashment of FIR bearing C.R. No. I-95/2016 registered

with Visnagar City Police Station on 19.05.2016 for offences

punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 504, 506(2), and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 is preferred by the petitioners, who are the

father-in-law and mother-in-law of Respondent No.3, seeking

quashing of the FIR being C.R. No. I-95/2016 dated 19.05.2016

registered at Visnagar City Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC, 1860

read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is

alleged that the offences were committed during the period from

04.06.2010 to 19.05.2016. The marriage between the son of the

petitioners and Respondent No.3 took place on 12.12.2009 as per

Hindu rites, and out of the said wedlock, a girl child named Dhruvi

was born on 22.04.2011.

2.1. It is the case of the petitioners that Respondent No.3 resided

with the accused persons in Palanpur until 03.06.2010 and

subsequently went to Germany with her husband, where they

stayed from 04.06.2010 to 31.08.2010. Upon her return to India

during pregnancy, she stayed at Palanpur where the petitioners

arranged for her medical care and traditional ceremonies. The

petitioners contend that they had cordial relations with Respondent

No.3 and she frequently visited her parental home, as per her

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

convenience. They assert that the complaint is delayed, vexatious,

and filed with an oblique motive, and that they have no knowledge

of any incident alleged to have occurred in Germany. No charge

sheet has been filed till the filing of this petition and trial

proceedings have not commenced.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. Learned counsel Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for the petitioners

submitted that the impugned FIR is illegal, unjust, and devoid of the

essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The allegations are

general, vague, and lack specificity, failing to establish a prima facie

case under the cited provisions.

3.1. It was further contended that the alleged incidents primarily

occurred in Germany, where the petitioners had no presence or

involvement. The inclusion of minor taunts attributed to the

petitioners at Palanpur appears to be a fabricated attempt to falsely

implicate them and confer jurisdiction to Visnagar City Police

Station. Thus, the FIR is bad in law on the ground of jurisdiction.

3.2. The petitioners highlighted that Respondent No. 3 resided with

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

them only until 03.06.2010, after which she accompanied her

husband to Germany. Upon her return to India, the petitioners

provided proper care during her pregnancy, hosted a "Baby

Shower" ceremony, and celebrated the birth of her child. No

allegations of harassment or cruelty were raised during this period,

and the delayed FIR filed on 19.05.2016 is baseless and vexatious.

3.3. Lastly, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted to allow

the petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: -

4. Learned APP, appearing for Respondent - State and the counsel

for Respondent No. 3 opposed the petition, arguing that the FIR

discloses cognizable offences, including cruelty under Section

498(A) and dowry-related offences under the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961. They contended that the allegations of taunts and

harassment at Palanpur are sufficient to establish jurisdiction and

warrant investigation.

4.1. The counsel for the respondent further submitted that the FIR

details specific instances of mental and physical harassment by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

petitioners, which require a full-fledged investigation to ascertain

the veracity of the claims. They argued that quashing the FIR at this

stage would interfere with the due process of law.

REASONING AND DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE:-

5. I have learned advocates for both the sides and perused the

records. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are

to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the allegations,

even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence

or are so improbable that no prudent person would believe them.

5.1. The FIR alleges offences under Sections 323, 498(A), 504,

506(2), and 114 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 7 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the allegations against the

petitioners are general and lack specific details regarding the time,

place, or nature of the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demands.

The FIR primarily focuses on incidents that allegedly occurred in

Germany, where the petitioners were not present.

5.2. The minor allegations of taunts attributed to the petitioners at

Palanpur appear to be an afterthought to bring the case within the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

jurisdiction of Visnagar City Police Station. The Court finds that

these allegations are vague and do not satisfy the ingredients of

Section 498(A), which requires a clear demonstration of willful

conduct driving the complainant to suffer cruelty or harassment in

connection with dowry demands.

5.3. Furthermore, the petitioners' uncontroverted submissions

regarding the care provided to Respondent No. 3 during her

pregnancy, the hosting of customary ceremonies, and the absence

of prior complaints during the relevant period cast significant doubt

on the veracity of the allegations. The delay of over five years in

filing the FIR, without any plausible explanation, further weakens

the case of Respondent No. 3.

5.4. The Court also notes that no charge sheet has been filed

despite the lapse of considerable time since the registration of the

FIR on 19.05.2016. This indicates a lack of material evidence to

substantiate the allegations against the petitioners.

5.5. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court finds merit in the

petitioners' contention that the alleged incidents primarily occurred

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

in Germany, and the inclusion of Palanpur-based allegations

appears to be a calculated attempt to harass the petitioners. The

Visnagar City Police Station lacks territorial jurisdiction to investigate

incidents that predominantly took place outside India, and the

vague allegations of taunts at Palanpur do not suffice to confer

jurisdiction.

5.6. Worthy assistance of the Apex Court's judgment of recent

origin in case of Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported

in 2025 INSC 504, requires to be taken as under:-

"12. Even if we assume that there are some allegations of assault and of physical and mental torture of the complainant, but they are against the husband. As against the parents in law, the allegations are only of extending taunts and of not parting with the money for managing household expenses. Specific details in respect of those taunts have not been disclosed. Moreover, a few taunts here and there is a part of everyday life which for happiness of the family are usually ignored. Interestingly, as per own allegations in the FIR, the complainant admits that when she reported those issues to her parents and uncle, she was counselled to bear patience. In the circumstances, in our considered view, no case to proceed against the parents in law, namely, the second and third appellant is made out. In so far as the first appellant is concerned, there are allegations of physical and mental torture of the complainant at his behest. Consequently, the case may proceed qua the first appellant.

13. Before parting, we would like to observe that the High adopted an extremely pedantic approach while dealing with the quashing petition of the appellants. No doubt, in ordinary course, while exercising power

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court is not required to test the correctness of the allegations, but in matters arising from matrimonial disputes, particularly where the allegations are levelled after many years of marriage and, that too, after one party initiates divorce proceeding against the other, the Court must be circumspect in taking the allegations at their face value. Rather, it must examine, where allegations of mala fides are there, whether those allegations have been levelled with an oblique purpose. More so, while considering the prayer of the relatives of the husband."

5.7. Thus, allegations of wear and tear in married life would fail to

attract offence under Section 498(A) and related offence.

5.8. Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v.

Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], it is apparent that continuation

of the proceedings against the petitioner would be manifestly

unjust, amounting to an abuse of process of law. The impugned FIR

appears to be malicious and vexatious, filed with an oblique and

ulterior motive. Relevant para is as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. 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 Art. 226 or the inherent powers under sec. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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 in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec. 155(2) of the Code.

(3) 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.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under sec. 155(2) of the Code.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) 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."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/14276/2016 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

CONCLUSION::-

6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value,

do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the

petitioners. The FIR appears to be a misuse of the process of law,

filed with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners. Continuing

the proceedings would result in an abuse of the process of the

Court and cause undue hardship to the petitioners.

ORDER:-