Gujarat High Court
Ilaben W/O Kaushikkumar Indulal Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 16135 of 2025
==========================================================
ILABEN W/O KAUSHIKKUMAR INDULAL PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ASHOK L. CHAUHAN(14049) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NILAY THAKOR(14166) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR vide
C.R.No.11188009240223 of 2024 registered at Modasa Town
Police Station, District.Arvalli, dated 19-04-2024 for the
offences are punishable under Sections 376,376(2)(N), 406, 420,
504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w),(i), 3(1)(w)(ii),3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Special
Atrocity Case No. 14 of 2024 for the alleged offences, which is
pending before the Court of Learned 2nd Additional District
Judge Court, Arvalli at Modasa and other consequential
proceedings, thereto, in the interest of justice.
2. The petition is filed after the charge sheet was filed on
18-06-2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
3. The present applicant happens to be the mother of
accused No. 1 named in the FIR, namely Raj @ Rutul Kaushik
Pandya and as per the FIR filed by one Purviben Dahyalal
Poojaji Asari, she has stated that she has a friend named Nirali
and Jigar. About seven months prior, the complainant, Jigar
and Nirali were sitting near Sai Temple. At that time, a
common friend of Jigar and Nirali, Raj Pandya, came there
and he also joined them. Over a period of time, friendship
developed between them and they remained in touch through
mobile and by personal meetings and ultimately fell in love.
While they were roaming around, the son of the present
applicant tried to get intimate, and at that time, the
complainant told him that she would move ahead only if he
intended to marry her. They started dating and roaming
together. After about one and a half months, as the accused
No.1 pressurized her to get intimate against her wish and will
of the complainant, they got intimate at the residence of
accused No. 1. Thereafter, under the promise of marriage, he
continued to get intimate with the complainant. Even, the
accused No. 1 also took the complainant to his residence and
introduced her to his mother, i.e., the present applicant, who
assured her that accused No.1 would marry her. The present
applicant, accused No. 1, and the complainant used to go out
together and once went to Nath Dwara for darshan as well.
There after, the complainant and accused No. 1 also used to
get intimate at the residence of their common friend Jigar
whenever there was no one at his residence. Upon resisting
intimacy, accused No. 1 allegedly threatened her and withdrew
from the promise to marry. The accused No.1 also informed
about relationship to the the staff members and parents of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
complainant and told them, he would marry the complainant.
The original complainant also alleged that accused No. 1
demanded Rs.8 lakh for purchasing a house at Ahmedabad and
for that the accused sold her car, settled her loan account, and
thereafter, the accused No.1 gave his two wheelers to the
complainant. On 11-04-2024, when the complainant went to
the residence of accused No. 1, the present applicant opened
the door and informed her that her son had got married,
naming his wife. Thereafter, she allegedly abused the
complainant about her caste by making derogatory remarks.
The wife of accused No. 1 then came out and a scuffle took
place, resulting in injury to the complainant, after which the
wife also started beating her. Ultimately, an FIR was registered
against accused No.1 and other persons, including the present
applicant, under the sections which are already stated herein
above, pursuant to which the charge sheet was filed on 18-06-
2024. After about a year from filing of the charge sheet, the
present application for quashing was filed.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Nilay Thakor submitted that the
present applicant has no control over her adult son's choice to
marry a particular girl and, therefore, implicating her in the
FIR is misconceived and only done to pressurize accused No.1.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Thakor further submitted that at
the time of the incident, there was no eyewitness to support
the complainant's version and, therefore, the impugned FIR
and all consequential proceedings are required to be quashed.
4.2 It was also submitted that the complainant was aware
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
that accused No. 1 was married while having a relationship
with him, as supported by screenshots annexed with the
petition, which were not part of the charge sheet. Thus, the
FIR is false and filed to misuse the process of law. Therefore,
also the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings are
required to be quashed.
4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Nilay Thakor further submitted that
a financial transaction had taken place between the
complainant and the son of the present applicant, for which an
agreement was executed on 15th April 2024, i.e., four days
after the incident. Thereafter, on 19th April 2024, the FIR was
registered. As per the agreement, the original complainant had
borrowed a sum of Rs. 7 lakh from the son of the present
applicant, which was to be returned by 22nd April 2024. With
a view to avoid repayment of that amount, the complainant
has falsely implicated the son of the present applicant along
with other co-accused persons and, therefore, the impugned
FIR is also required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Thakor relied upon two interim
orders passed by this Court in cases where FIRs were
registered under the provisions of the Atrocities Act, and in
which this Court had granted protection to the accused
persons. The aforesaid orders are: order dated 25-09-2024 in
Special Criminal Application No. 12314 of 2024 in the case of
Ranjit Sinh Nagji Bhai Mori vs. State of Gujarat and Others,
and order dated 28-07-2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No.
15049 of 2025 in the case of Anil Bhai Chandu Lal Soni vs.
State of Gujarat and Others , whereby, for the reasons recorded
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
therein, this Court granted protection to the co-accused in both
matters.
5.2 Further, learned advocate Mr. Thakor also relied upon
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.
707 of 2020 in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Others, and, by relying upon paragraph
No.15, submitted that in the instant case also, no case is made
out against the present applicant and, therefore, the FIR and
all consequential proceedings against her are required to be
quashed and set aside.
6. Learned APP submitted that in the instant case, the
charge sheet has already been filed almost a year ago, on 18-
06-2024, and there are as many as 26 witnesses named
therein. The evidence gathered during the course of
investigation prima facie shows that the present applicant has
committed the offence in question. As the offence is supported
by the material in the charge sheet, there is prima facie
evidence against the present applicant. Therefore, the present
application may not be entertained and the applicant should be
asked to face trial. It was also submitted by learned APP that
the present applicant, who happens to be the mother of the
main accused, was introduced by the main accused to the
complainant and had concealed the fact that her son was
already married. Despite knowing this, she did not disclose the
truth and instead encouraged the relationship between the
complainant and accused No.1 on the false premise that her
son was unmarried and would, sooner or later, marry the
complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
6.1 Learned APP Mr. Mehta also pointed out from the FIR
and charge sheet that the present applicant had also gone to
Nath Dwara for darshan along with accused No. 1 and the
complainant, and though she was fully aware that her son was
married, she did not reveal this fact to the complainant.
Therefore, she is also equally responsible for the offence in
question.
6.2 Learned APP Mr. Mehta submitted that if an offence is
committed on the false premise of marrying the complainant, it
takes on a different complexion. In the instant case, the
mother of the main accused, i.e., the present applicant, herself
concealed the fact that her son was married. Had the
complainant been clearly informed that the accused, who was
portraying himself as unmarried, was in fact married, the
situation would have been different. However, by not revealing
the truth and by encouraging the relationship, which was
based on a false premise, the present applicant actively
contributed to the offence in question. Furthermore, she was
aware of the complainant's background, caste, community, and
other details, as the complainant had met her and gone out
with her. She was, therefore, fully aware that the complainant
belonged to the scheduled caste, and when she uttered
derogatory remarks against the complainant, it was done
intentionally, as it cannot be said that she was unaware of the
complainant's caste and community.
6.3 Learned APP further pointed out from the charge sheet
papers that there are statements of witnesses which support the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
complainant's case. Therefore, at this stage, whatever is
submitted by learned advocate Mr. Thakore cannot be
considered as the gospel truth, as those submissions are neither
admitted by any witness nor supported by evidence. All the
submissions made by Mr. Thakore are matters of evidence, the
truthfulness of which can only be tested during trial upon
leading evidence. Hence, this Court may dismiss the petition
and direct the petitioner to face trial.
6.4 As far as the decisions cited by learned advocate Mr.
Thakore are concerned, learned APP pointed out that the
interim orders relied upon were passed in cases where the
facts were entirely different, and being interim in nature, they
cannot be relied upon in the present case. With regard to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra)
cited by learned advocate Mr. Thakore, learned APP submitted
that the facts of both cases are different, and the role
attributed to the present applicant is distinct from that of the
applicant in the cited case. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment
would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, and
the petition may be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and
perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that the
present applicant happens to be the mother of accused No. 1,
who gave a false promise to the complainant--a mature lady
aged 35 years, who, at the same time, was unaware that
accused No.1 was already married. The allegation against the
present applicant is that she was introduced to the complainant
by accused No.1 and, despite knowing that her son was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
married, she encouraged the relationship by projecting him as
unmarried and accompanying the complainant and accused No.
1 on various occasions, as reflected in the FIR. Therefore,
being the mother of accused No. 1, it was the duty of the
present applicant to disclose the truth to the complainant that
her son was already married. She could have prevented the
relationship from developing, which, as alleged in the FIR,
ultimately resulted in the parties becoming intimate on
multiple occasions.
8. Further, the submission regarding the alleged borrowing
of Rs. 7 lakh by the complainant, to be repaid by 22nd April
2024, as well as the screenshots annexed with the petition
indicating that the complainant was aware that accused No. 1
was already married, are all matters of evidence. Upon perusal
of the charge sheet papers, the Court finds that there is
sufficient prima facie material against the present applicant
which would amount to constituting an offence.
9. Further, the witnesses have also supported the
complainant's version that the present applicant made
derogatory remarks about the complainant's caste and
community. At this juncture, as the charge sheet has been filed
and the trial has not yet commenced, I restrain myself from
mentioning the specific statements of witnesses which would
clearly establish that an offence is made out, so as to ensure
that the trial is not affected by any observations of this Court.
Therefore, upon finding that a prima facie offence is made out
from the charge sheet papers, I do not deem it appropriate to
interfere with the ongoing trial process.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
10. Further, as far as the decisions relied upon by learned
advocate Mr. Thakor are concerned, the two orders cited by
him are interim orders--one in the case of Anil Bhai Chandulal
Soni, dated 28-07-2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No.
15049 of 2025, and the other dated 25-09-2024 in the case of
Ranjit Sinh Nagji Mori in Special Criminal Application No.
12314 of 2024. Therefore, if some interim protection was
granted on the basis of the facts of those cases pursuant to a
reasoned order of this Court, the same cannot form the basis
for granting relief in the present petition, as the findings
therein were only prima facie in nature and not conclusive.
Accordingly, those orders could not have been relied upon by
the petitioner.
11. As far as the decision in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra)
relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Thakor is concerned, he
has more particularly relied upon paragraph 15 of the
judgment, which reads as under:
"As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were
within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the
informant that there was any member of the public (not
merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the
house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were
uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In
the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain
witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were
the persons present within the four walls of the building. The
offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16135/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court
in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public
view as none was said to be present within the four walls of
the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet."
12. Upon reading the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the
facts of that case were different. In that matter, it had clearly
emerged that the incident did not occur at any place within
public view. In contrast, in the instant case, the material on
record prima facie indicates that the ingredients of the relevant
sections of the Atrocities Act are satisfied. Therefore, the
aforesaid observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. When the charge sheet is filed, a prima facie offence is
made out and, therefore, though this Court has jurisdiction to
entertain such a petition, looking to the material on record, I
do not deem it appropriate to do so. Accordingly, the petition
is required to be dismissed, and is dismissed.
However, it is clarified that any observations made in
this order are purely tentative in nature, are only prima facie
observations, and shall not influence the ongoing trial or the
merits of the matter.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
BHAVIN MEHTA
