Gujarat High Court
Dhavalbhai Dilipbhai Oza vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 19289 of 2020
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18142 of 2020
==========================================================
DHAVALBHAI DILIPBHAI OZA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASIM PANDYA for MR DARSHAK N TRIVEDI(9276) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS.FALGUNI D.TRIVEDI(3912) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL ORDER IN CRMA 19289 OF 2020
Learned advocate for the petitioner does not press present
petition. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of as not
pressed. Notice discharged. Interim relief granted earlier
stands vacated.
ORAL ORDER IN CRMA 18142 of 2020
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),
the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR
being C.R.No.1119100120059 registered with Anandnagar Police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323,
506, 114 of the IPC as well as all other consequential
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners
herein.
2. Seeking quashment of questioned FIR, learned advocate for
the petitioners submits that petitioners are in-laws of the
complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has made
general allegations against the petitioners in typical fashion to
enrope petitioners in the offence. It is further submitted that FIR
even if taken on its face value, it could not establish offence of
section 498(A) of IPC. Reading questioned FIR, learned advocate
for the petitioners submits that right to file FIR has been
misused by complainant and it is filed to pressurize the
petitioners and therefore, it is submitted to allow the petition.
3. Learned APP opposing plea to quash the FIR would submit
that according to FIR, the petitioners were inciting husband of
the complainant and it was root cause for offence alleged against
the husband. In view of that, it is submitted that let trial to
conduct against the petitioners to test veracity of the allegations.
On this grounds, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
5. Even if we consider the contents of the FIR as it is, it
appears that except general allegations, no specific role is
attributed to the petitioners herein and therefore, continue with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
the proceedings of FIR against the petitioners is a futile exercise.
6. Apt to note that allegations levelled in the FIR are general
and vague in nature. In order to establish offence under section
498(A) of IPC, one need to averred that there was harassment or
cruelty. Cruelty means conduct likely to commit suicide or cause
grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health physically or
mentally to the complainant or harassment with a view to
coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for
property or valuable security.
7. In the present case, FIR even if taken on its face value, so
far as petitioners are concerned, role of the petitioners is found
to be limited of inciting husband of the complainant. It is alleged
that due to such incitement, husband of the complaint was
extending physical and mental cruelty to the complainant.
However, specific incidents are missing in the matter. Causal
reference of the petitioner in the FIR is insufficient to take
cognizance.
8. In recent judgment of Achin Gupta Versus State Of
Haryana [2025 (3) SCC 756], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
in para 20,21,22,25,31,32 as under :-
"20. It is now well settled that the power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where
such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the
Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the
High Court but only saves the inherent power, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
the Court possessed before the enactment of the
Criminal Procedure Code. There are three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an
order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the
ends of justice.
21. The investigation of an offence is the field
exclusively reserved for the Police Officers, whose
powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the
power to investigate into the cognizable offence is
legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the
provisions under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.. While
exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
the court does not function as a Court of appeal or
revision. As noted above, the inherent jurisdiction
under the Section, although wide, yet should be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and
only when such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which
alone courts exist. The authority of the court exists
for advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has the power to prevent such
abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to
allow any action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the
powers, the court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that the initiation or
continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of
court or quashing of these proceedings would
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence
is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine
the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to
be quashed, it is permissible to look into the
materials to assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out even if the
allegations are accepted in toto.
22. Once the investigation is over and chargesheet is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
filed, the FIR pales into insignificance. The court,
thereafter, owes a duty to look into all the materials
collected by the investigating agency in the form of
chargesheet. There is nothing in the words of Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the
power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of
court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of
the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that
the proceedings initiated against a person can be
interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has
materialized into a chargesheet.
25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on
some general and sweeping allegations without
bringing on record any specific instances of criminal
conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the
court. The court owes a duty to subject the
allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough
scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any
grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are
made only with the sole object of involving certain
individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly
when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial
dispute.
31. We are of the view that the category 7 referred to
above should be taken into consideration and applied
in a case like the one on hand a bit liberally. If the
Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement
by the complainant of her husband and his close
relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the
FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of
a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing
substantial justice should read in between the lines
the oblique motive of the complainant and take a
pragmatic view of the matter. If the submission
canvassed by the counsel appearing for the
Respondent No. 2 and the State is to be accepted
mechanically then in our opinion the very conferment
of the inherent power by the Cr.P.C. upon the High
Court would be rendered otiose. We are saying so for
the simple reason that if the wife on account of
matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
and his family members then the first thing, she
would ensure is to see that proper allegations are
levelled in the First Information Report. Many times
the services of professionals are availed for the same
and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it
would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any
loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However,
that does not mean that the Court should shut its
eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that
whether true or false, there are allegations in the
First Information Report and the chargesheet papers
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If
the allegations alone as levelled, more particularly in
the case like the one on hand, are to be looked into
or considered then why the investigating agency
thought fit to file a closure report against the other
co-accused? There is no answer to this at the end of
the learned counsel appearing for the State. We say
so, because allegations have been levelled not only
against the Appellant herein but even against his
parents, brother & sister. If that be so, then why the
police did not deem fit to file chargesheet against the
other co-accused? It appears that even the
investigating agency was convinced that the FIR was
nothing but an outburst arising from a matrimonial
dispute.
32. Many times, the parents including the close
relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole.
Instead of salvaging the situation and making all
possible endeavours to save the marriage, their
action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer
hatred towards the husband and his family members,
brings about complete destruction of marriage on
trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind
of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the
Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No
sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even
if there are fair chances of reconciliation between
the spouses, they would get destroyed. The
foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance,
adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to
each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling
differences are mundane matters and should not be
exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy
what is said to have been made in the heaven. The
Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be
weighed from that point of view in determining what
constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always
keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of
the parties, their character and social status. A very
technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove
to be disastrous for the very institution of the
marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers
are the children. The spouses fight with such venom
in their heart that they do not think even for a second
that if the marriage would come to an end, then what
will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a
very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the
children is concerned. The only reason why we are
saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue
delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings
would bring about nothing but hatred for each other.
There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and
harassment by the husband and his family members
towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or
harassment may vary. However, the Police
machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last
resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty
and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be
utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at
ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at
the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends.
In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or
ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be
applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without
Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every
matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to
the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial
irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen
in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to
cruelty."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
9. In judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kamal
and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, rendered in SLP
(Cri.) No.9167 of 2024 in apra 13 and 14, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under:-
"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 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.
14. In view of the discussion above, in our view, the
continuance of the proceedings as against the parents-in-
law (second and third appellants) would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court and therefore we deem
it appropriate to partly allow this appeal and quash the
impugned proceedings qua the second and third
appellants. Consequently, the judgment and order of the
High Court dismissing the Section 482 petition qua the
second and third appellants is set aside. The impugned
FIR and the consequential proceedings qua the second
and third appellants stand quashed. The proceedings
against the first appellant shall continue and brought to
its logical conclusion in accordance with law."
9.1 In recent judgment in case of Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana
Reddy & Ors. Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Rendered
in 2025 JX(SC) 558, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19289/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
"11. In the present case also, it is an admitted position
that the appellants are residing at Hyderabad whereas
the de-facto complainant stayed in her marital house at
Guntur at the relevant point of time. She is presently
staying in USA. There is omnibus allegation against the
appellants that they too used to demand dowry or
instigate accused nos. 1 to 3 who are not before us, in
demanding dowry.
12. Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the
view, having relied on this Court's previous decisions in
Geeta Mehrotra (supra) & Dara Lakshmi Narayana
(supra), the present criminal case against the appellants
deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed and Criminal Case No. 359 of 2016 against the
appellants is quashed."
10. Coming back to the present case, except bald allegations
against the petitioners, who are in-laws of the complainant, no
specific incident or overt act is alleged against the petitioners.
FIR is found to be abuse of process of law against the petitioners
and allowing the petitioner to face trial would be absurd process.
11. In the result, the application is allowed. The proceedings of
FIR being C.R.No.1119100120059 registered with Anandnagar
Police Station as well as all other consequential proceedings
arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein are
hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
12. It is made clear that the proceedings of the impugned FIR
is continued against the petitioner No.1 husband herein, without
being influenced by the disposal of present petition.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
