Gujarat High Court
Iqbalbhai Mohammedbhai Vala vs State Of Gujarat on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7300/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7300 of 2017
==========================================================
IQBALBHAI MOHAMMEDBHAI VALA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
NIYANT R BHIMANI(8000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SHIVANI RAJPUROHIT(5377) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 24/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the
petitioners, learned APP Mr. Soham Joshi for the respondent-State.
Learned advocate Ms. Shivani Rajpurohit, appearing for respondent
No.2, failed to remain present despite the specific order passed by
this Court on 17.02.2025:-
"When the matter is called out, learned advocates for both the
parties absent.
As a last chance, S.O. to 24.4.2025.
It is clarified that no chit, sick note or leave note shall be
entertained on that day and the mater will be proceeded on
merits."
2. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7300/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
First Information Report (FIR) bearing I-CR No. 43/2017 registered
with Chowk Bazaar Police Station, District Surat, against the present
petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. An FIR bearing I-CR No. 43/2017 came to be registered on
15.02.2017 at Chowk Bazaar Police Station, District Surat, against the
present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,
323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC.
3.1. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the petitioners were
called by the Chowk Bazaar Police Station and were arrested in
connection with the said FIR on 17.02.2017. Thereafter, the
petitioners were enlarged on bail.
3.2. The petitioners, who are the brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-
in-law (Jethani) of the complainant, are residing separately and
claim to have been falsely implicated. Aggrieved by their wrongful
arraignment, the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court
seeking quashing and setting aside of the FIR insofar as it concerns
them.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-
4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati, placing reliance on
recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muppidi Lakshmi
Narayana Reddy & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.,
reported in 2025 INSC 562, and Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat &
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7300/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 504, submitted that the petitioners are
the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant-wife and
have been residing separately even before the complainant's
marriage to her husband.
4.1. He further submitted that, on a bare reading of the allegations
levelled in the FIR, it appears that the complainant was residing
with her husband in the State of Oman for a substantial period,
during which they begot three children. Subsequently, at a certain
point in time, the complainant returned to India and alleged that the
petitioners had instigated her husband to subject her to physical and
mental cruelty.
4.2. It was further submitted that, following to the said allegations,
the complainant once again cohabited with her husband and
children in the State of Oman. Thereafter, she returned to India and
began residing with her parents, and subsequently lodged the
present complaint, alleging that the petitioners have committed
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114
of the IPC.
4.3. He further submitted that the allegations in the FIR are
unproved and even if believed to be a correct they are so specious,
vague and omnibus that does not constitute the offence as alleged
in the FIR. He further submitted that Jeth and Jethani, who are
living separately has been dragged into prosecution in furtherance
of theory of bringing the relatives of the husband within the four
corners of accusation and FIR is a part of the theory. Therefore he
submitted that impugned FIR may be quashed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7300/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
4.4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati has placed on record
an affidavit sworn by the complainant, dated 30.04.2024, registered
at Serial No. 1033 of 2024, indicating that the dispute has been
amicably resolved. The affidavit, along with a copy of the
complainant's Aadhar Card, is ordered to be taken on record.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:-
5. Learned APP opposed the petition and submitted that the
allegations levelled in the complaint disclose a prima facie
commission of a cognizable offence, thereby necessitating a
thorough investigation; it was further submitted that the FIR cannot
be quashed at the inception merely on the basis of disputed
questions of fact, which are required to be adjudicated upon during
the course of trial.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
6. What emerges from the record is that the petitioners are the
brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant-wife (i.e., Jeth
and Jethani, respectively). During the 19 years of marital life, the
complainant resided with her husband in the State of Oman for a
considerable duration, where the couple was blessed with three
children, presently aged 15, 6, and 3 years, respectively.
6.1. A perusal of the FIR indicates that, during an interregnum
period of marital discord and disputes with her husband, the
complainant returned to India. However, the couple later reconciled
and resumed cohabitation in Oman. Subsequently, for reasons best
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7300/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
known to them, the marital relationship deteriorated once again,
prompting the complainant to return to India and take shelter with
her parental family.
6.2. It appears that, at this juncture, the complainant lodged the
present FIR invoking Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, asserting that neither her husband nor in-laws
attempted to re-establish matrimonial ties. While doing so, she
appears to have recollected a past incident that allegedly occurred
during her temporary stay in India, and asserted that the petitioners
had instigated her husband to subject her to physical and mental
cruelty.
6.3. However, upon careful consideration of the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, it becomes apparent that the same
are vague, omnibus, and speculative in nature, lacking specific
instances of cruelty or overt acts to substantiate the invocation of
Section 498A or other penal provisions. Moreover, the FIR itself
reflects that after the alleged incident, the complainant reconciled
with her husband and voluntarily returned to reside with him in
Oman. At no point during this period did she lodge any complaint
alleging assault, criminal intimidation, or issuance of threats that
caused alarm or danger. Hence, chief offence alleged under Section
498A of the IPC is failed to substantiate.
6.4. The remaining offences are merely incidental or ancillary to the
principal offence under Section 498A of the IPC and fail to stand on
independent footing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its recent
pronouncements in Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy (supra) and
Kamal (supra), has held that vague and omnibus allegations--
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7300/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
particularly against distant relatives--are insufficient to attract
criminal liability under Section 498A, IPC.
6.5. Relevant reference may be made to Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
Lakshmi Narayana Reddy (supra) judgment, which read as under:-
"8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
record it appears that there are omnibus and general allegations
against the appellants. As per complaint, although, they reside at
Hyderabad, they used to visit Guntur and during such visit they
used to instigate accused no. 1/husband and his parents and would
also join in demanding dowry. The initial allegation is of demand of
Rs. 5,00,000/- made against accused No. 4/appellant no. 1 with
further statement that they used to taunt that if accused no. 1 would
have married somewhere else, he would have got Rs. 10 crores
dowry. There is no allegation of any physical torture being
perpetrated by the present appellants. The allegation is only of taunt
and statement that they are highly placed having political influence
and connection with Ministers as such they instigated accused no. 1
to accused no. 3 to pressurise the de-facto complainant to get
additional dowry.
9. There is no denial of the fact that the appellants reside at
Hyderabad whereas the de-facto complainant stayed at Guntur in
her marital house. There is no specific date as to when the present
appellants visited Guntur and joined accused nos. 1 to 3 in
demanding dowry from de-facto complainant. Considering the
growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the
husband, this Court in the matter of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.1 has deprecated the practice involving the
relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The following has been
held in para 18:
"18. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ramesh case
[(2005) 3 SCC 507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been pleased to
hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by
the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the
informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as
possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet
furnished the legal basis for the Magistrate to take cognizance
of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned
Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in
the FIR and the contents of the chargesheet, none of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7300/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
alleged offences under Sections 498- A, 406 IPC and Section 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married
sister of the complainant's husband who was undisputedly not
living with the family of the complainant's husband. Their
Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that the
High Court ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the
ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the
appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed."
6.6. It is also apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Kamal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra).
The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:-
"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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7300/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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."
ORDER:-
7. In view of the above, the present petition deserves to be
allowed, and it is accordingly ALLOWED. The FIR, being I-CR No.
43/2017 registered with Chowk Bazaar Police Station, District Surat,
along with all subsequent proceedings arising from it, is hereby
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
