Gujarat High Court
Majidkhan Mehboobkhan Pathan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23205/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 23205 of 2019
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
MAJIDKHAN MEHBOOBKHAN PATHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR SOEB R. BHOHARIA(2205) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN(6383) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANVESH V VYAS(5654) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MAHETA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, the 'Code'), the applicant prays for
quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R.
No.27/2017 registered with Mahila Police Station,
Banaskantha for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short") and under
Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The allegations leveled in the impugned FIR in
nutshell are as under,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23205/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
The accused have demanded dowry of
Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- towards the
motorcycle from the respondent no.2 herein and
also meted out mental and physical harassment to
the respondent no.2 and also threatened not to
disclose the said fact to anyone.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Valimohammed Pathan
for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Manan Maheta
for respondent no.1 - State of Gujarat. Learned
advocate, Mr. Anvesh Vyas has not remained
present.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Pathan appearing for the
applicant submitted that the impugned FIR is
nothing but a gross abuse and misuse of process of
law and is filed with a sole intent to harass the
applicant herein. Learned advocate submitted that
in fact, the applicant is brother-in-law (je#) of
the respondent no.2 herein and is residing
separately and he has nothing to do with the so-
called harassed as alleged by the respondent no.2
herein in the impugned FIR. Learned advocate
submitted that in fact, the respondent no.2 herein
has rope entire family members in the impugned
FIR, however, the original accused nos.4 to 8 had
approached this Hon'ble Court by filing quashing
petitions being Criminal Misc. Application
No.24649/2017 and Criminal Misc. Application
No.23318/2017 and the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, after considering the submissions canvassed
on behalf of learned advocates for the parties as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23205/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
also considering the allegations leveled in the
impugned FIR, quashed and set aside the impugned
FIR qua them, copies of said order are produced on
record at Page Nos.4 and 9 respectively of
compilation. Learned advocate further submitted
that after some time, the original accused no.1 -
husband and the respondent no.2 have taken
customary divorce, copy of which is produced on
record at Page No.14 of the compilation and now
the respondent no.2 is settled in her life.
Learned advocate submitted that the allegations
leveled against the applicant are identically
similar in nature, therefore, this application may
be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed and
set aside.
5. At this stage, learned advocate submitted that
considering the principle of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 as well as
in case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab,
reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239,
the prosecution launched against the applicant is
required to be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Maheta opposed
the present application with a vehemence and
submitted that specific allegations are leveled
against each accused persons and prima facie basic
and essential ingredients to constitute the
offence against the applicant are made out. It is,
therefore urged that the present application may
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23205/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
not be entertained and it may be rejected.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned advocates for
the respective parties. After hearing the learned
advocates for the respective parties and perusing
the contents of the FIR, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the complainant has tried
to misuse the machinery of criminal law. For
ascertaining as to whether any offence as alleged
in the FIR is established or not, this Court has
very minutely gone through the allegations and the
documents as pointed out by the respective
parties.
8. At this stage, I would like to refer to the order
dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in case of co-accused in Criminal Misc.
Application No.24649/2017, wherein the Coordinate
Bench of this Court has considered the submissions
made on behalf of the parties as also allegations
leveled in the impugned FIR and quashed the FIR
qua other co-accused. Paragraph Nos.11 to 14 read
as under,
"11. In the present case, the respondent
no. 2 has alleged that the applicants have
demanded dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and a
motorcycle worth Rs.50,000/- prior to the
engagement, when the talks of marriage were
going on. It is further alleged that prior
to 10 days of the marriage, which was to be
solemnized on 10.05.2015, the said demand
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23205/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
was made. It is difficult to comprehend
that despite such demand of dowry, the
family members of the present complainant
had agreed to marry with the brother of the
present applicant no. 1-Javedkhan.
12. It is further alleged that the
marriage was solemnized only after the
household articles worth of Rs. 7,00,000/-
were given to the present applicants. It is
further alleged that even thereafter she
was harassed by the family members of the
present applicants. The impugned F.I.R. has
been lodged on 05.09.2017 i.e. almost after
the period of two years from the date of
her marriage. The marriage was solemnized
on 10.05.2015. It is the say of the
respondent no. 2 that because of the threat
given by the present applicants about
refusing to come with the marriage
procession, she was forced to enter into
the marriage.
13. In the considered opinion of this
court, no offence is said to have been
committed by the present applicants since
the demand of dowry, as alleged by the
present complainant, was made even prior to
the engagement when the talks of marriage
was going on. The say of the respondent no.
2 complainant that thereafter she agreed to
solemnize the marriage only because the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23205/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
present applicants have assured that they
would not demand any dowry. Even it is
assumed that the said demand of dowry was
made, she could have refused to enter into
the marriage. Under the circumstance, it
appears that the F.I.R. is made with an
oblique motive alleging that the aforesaid
offence against the present applicants who
are the relatives of the husband in order
to harass them.
14. Under the circumstance, no case is
made out by the prosecution and hence the
impugned F.I.R. bearing I-C.R.No. 27 of
2017 registered with Mahila Police Station,
District: Banaskantha for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(a), 323,
294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and under
Sections 3 and 7 of the Act deserves to be
quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute. Direct service is permitted."
9. Thus in view of the aforesaid observations made by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
aforesaid quashing petition, it is found out that
the role attributed to the aforesaid co-accused,
against whom FIR has already been quashed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, is identically in
similar nature including the allegations leveled
against them. Therefore, I am of the considered
view that even if the allegations levelled against
the applicant in the impugned FIR are taken at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23205/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
their face value and accepted in their entirety,
keeping in view the facts of the present case and
the penal provisions, they do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused persons, as per the parameters set out
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhajan
Lal (supra) and in the case of R.P. Kapur
(supra). If it is the case of the complainant that
prior to solemnization of the marriage, demand of
dowry was made, in that event, she could have
refused to enter into the marriage, which she has
not done so.
10. Further, the scope and ambit of inherent powers of
the Court under Section 482 CrPC or the extra-
ordinary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, now stands well defined by
series of judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly,
this Court has inherent power to do real and
substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court. At the same time, the Court
must be careful to see that its decision in
exercise of this power is based on sound
principles. The inherent power vested in the Court
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. However, this Court can exercise its
inherent power or extra-ordinary power if it comes
to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
continue would be an abuse of the process of the
Court, or the ends of justice require that the
proceeding ought to be quashed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23205/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
11. Thus, if the facts of the present case are to be
examined in the context of the aforesaid
observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am
of the considered opinion that the chances of an
ultimate conviction of the applicant on the basis
of the facts of the present case are bleak and
therefore continuation of criminal prosecution
against the applicant is nothing but sheer misuse
of process of the Court. Thus, considering the
ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
catena of decisions, I am of the considered
opinion that the FIR in question deserves to be
quashed qua the applicant.
12. In the result, the application succeeds and is
hereby allowed. Accordingly, the impugned First
Information Report being C.R. No.27/2017
registered with Mahila Police Station, Banaskantha
and all other consequential proceedings arising
out of said FIR are hereby quashed and set.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
