Gujarat High Court
Baldevbhai Jivanbhai Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21510/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 21510 of 2021
==========================================================
BALDEVBHAI JIVANBHAI DESAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHESH K POOJARA(5879) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS ANUSHREE . PANDEY(11733) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SUDHANSHU A JHA(8345) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
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 11191036211312 of 2021 registered with
Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 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 petitioner submits that petitioners are in-laws of the
complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has made
general allegations against the petitioner in typical fashion to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21510/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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, offence under Section 498(A) and
114 of the IPC are attracted. 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 parties.
5. Even if the contents of the FIR are taken at face value, it
is evident that, apart from vague and omnibus allegations, no
specific role has been attributed to the present petitioners.
Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings pursuant to such a
FIR would amount to a futile and vexatious exercise. It is also
pertinent to note that the FIR has been lodged after an
inordinate delay of three years, without any satisfactory
explanation for the same. A plain reading of the FIR reveals
that the allegations are primarily directed against the in-laws
of the complainant and pertain to her having left the
matrimonial home. Beyond these generalized statements,
there are no specific or concrete allegations constituting
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21510/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
harassment or cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A of
the IPC.
6. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra Versus State Of Uttar
Pradesh [2012 (10) SCC 741], the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held in para 15, 16,17, 20,21 and 25 as under :-
"15. Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature
in the case of Ramesh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported
in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at 738 allegations were made in
a complaint against the husband, the inlaws, husband's
brother and sister who were all the petitioner before the
High Court wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and
investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector
of Police in the court of Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy.
Thereupon, the learned magistrate took cognizance of
the offence and issued warrants against the appellants
on 13.2.2002. Four of the accused-appellants were
arrested and released on bail by the magistrate at
Mumbai. The appellants had filed petition under Section
482, Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court for quashing
the proceedings in complaint case on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. The High Court by the
impugned order dismissed the petition observing that the
grounds raised by the petitioner were all subject matters
to be heard by the trial court for better appreciation after
conducting full trial as the High Court was of the view
that it was only desirable to dismiss the criminal original
petition and the same was also dismissed. However, the
High Court had directed the Magistrate to dispense with
the personal attendance of the appellants.
16. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court
dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
special leave petition was filed in this Court giving rise to
the appeals therein where threefold contentions were
raised viz., (i) that the allegations are frivolous and
without any basis; (ii) even according to the FIR, no
incriminating acts were done within the jurisdiction of
Trichy Police Station and the court at Trichy and,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21510/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
therefore, the learned magistrate lacked territorial
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and (iii)
taking cognizance of the alleged offence at that stage
was barred under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C. as it was beyond
the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)
Cr.P.C. Apart from the subsequent two contentions, it
was urged that the allegations under the FIR do not make
out any offence of which cognizance could be taken.
17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter
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 charge
sheet, none of the alleged offences under Section 498 A,
406 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.
20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an
apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of
G.V. Rao V/s. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3
SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court
had held that the High Court should have quashed the
complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all
family members had been roped into the matrimonial
litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree
that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute
in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21510/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of
the family are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose
their "young" days in chasing their cases in different
courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was
that the courts would not encourage such disputes.
21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in
the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana &
Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the
object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section
498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture
to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish
the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the
wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands
of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife
under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives
and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her
husband and his relatives and the wife and husband
agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent
powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would
prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the
purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR
becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a
bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would
however be a different matter depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or
not to exercise such a power.
25. In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried
sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra
approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings
against them, inter-alia, on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21510/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
was made out against them under Sections
498A,/323/504/506 including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to
examine whether there were prima facie material against
the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo
the trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court seems to have overlooked all the pleas
that were raised and rejected the petition on the solitary
ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the
appellants to approach the trial court."
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21510/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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."
7.1. 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:-
"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."
8. 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 petitioners to face trial would be
absurd process.
9. In the result, the application is allowed. The proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21510/2021 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
of FIR being 11191036211312 of 2021 registered with
Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City 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.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
