Gujarat High Court
Sunil S/O Manilal Borisa vs State Of Gujarat on 26 August, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5623/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DOMESTIC VIOLANCE ) NO.
5623 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SUNIL S/O MANILAL BORISA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.FALGUNI D.TRIVEDI(3912) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, ASST. SPUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 26/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint and the
process issued on 29.11.2022 while registering CRMA no.
J/7588/2022 under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner, at the outset, has
submitted that the present petition is filed only on behalf of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5623/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
petitioner who is arraigned as accused no. 3 in the domestic
violence proceedings, though he is not a person who is related
either to the respondent no. 3 - original complainant or a
relatives i.e. original accused no. 1 and 2. He has also
submitted that the only relation that can be drawn is that, he is
an employer of the accused no. 2, the mother-in-law of the
original complainant and allegedly having an illicit affair with
the original accused no. 2. Apart from that, according to the
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner, there is no allegation
against him which would constitute an offence of domestic
violence against the present petitioner. Learned Advocate has
taken this Court through the definitions under Section 2(f) and
2(q) and submitted that the contents would not attract these
definitions insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
3. Learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2 submitted by
drawing attention of this Court through contents specifically in
paragraph 5 of the complaint, which refer to the process of
carrying out of abortion. According to the learned Advocate, the
said process of abortion was at the insistence of the present
petitioner.
4. Having heard learned Advocate for the parties and having
perused the documents on record, it appears that respondent
no. 2 is having a matrimonial dispute with original accused nos.
1 and 2, the husband and the mother-in-law respectively. In
this connection, an FIR being CR no. 11191037230044/2023
was registered for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 114 of
IPC as well as Section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 registered with Odhav Police Station, wherein, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5623/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
pertinent to observe that the present petitioner is not named as
an accused. Obviously, the petitioner does not fall in the
definition of a relative as the only relation that appears on
record is that the original accused no. 2 was employed with the
present petitioner as a nurse and also from the allegations made
in the domestic violence application that they were having an
illicit relationship.
Even if the allegations are taken on record, both the
petitioner and original accused no. 2 being adult and were in
consensual relationship would not constitute an offence for
which the petitioner can be tried. The court has taken into
consideration the definition of a domestic relationship as
defined under Section 2(f) which would read as under.
2(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship
between two persons who live or have, at any point of
time, lived together in a shared household, when they
are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a
relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are
family members living together as a joint family;
5. Clearly, the petitioner is not residing as a joint family or residing
within the same household or sharing the household so as to
constitute a domestic relationship between the petitioner and
respondent no. 2 - complainant. Moreover, the definition of a
respondent who can be called upon to answer the application
initiated under the Domestic Violence Act wherein 2(q) defines
"Respondent" as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/5623/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/08/2025
undefined
2(q) "respondent" means any adult male person who is,
or has been, in a domestic relationship with the
aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved
person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a
relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a
complaint against a relative of the husband or the male
partner;
6. In view of aforesaid 2 definitions and relationship, the petitioner
and the role attributed to him does not constitute a domestic
violence. Therefore, no proceedings are warranted against the
present petitioners.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the proceedings of domestic violence
initiated under CRMA no. J/7588/2022 are ordered to be
quashed qua the present petitioner. It is clarified that insofar as
the other accused arraigned, the proceedings to continue in
accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
Mehul Desai
