Gujarat High Court
Manisha W/O. Devendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18004/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 18004 of 2021
==========================================================
MANISHA W/O. DEVENDRABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.NIDHI P BAROT(6675) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash
and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.11191045210675 of 2021
registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad City
for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506(2), 507
and 114 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Seeking quashment of questioned FIR, learned advocate for
the applicant submits that petitioner is cousin sister in law of
respondent no.2. It is further submitted that except allegation of
threatening tantrums, no other allegations are levelled against
the petitioner. It is submitted that no specific date and time of
incident is mentioned. Learned advocate for the petitioner has
placed on record judgment in Criminal Misc. Application No.267
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18004/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
of 2021 passed by learned CJM, Kadi in proceedings under DV
Act, whereby, learned Trial Court dismissed the application
recording reason that complaiant is living with some third party
in relationship like husband and wife. Therefore, it is submitted
to allow the petition.
3. Learned APP on the other hand, opposing plea to quash the
FIR would submit that according to FIR, the petitioner was
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 petitioner to test
veracity of the allegations. On this grounds, it is submitted to
dismiss the petition.
4. Respondent no.2 - complainant is served, but did not
contest the petition.
5. 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.
6. In the present case, FIR even if taken on its face value, so
far as petitioner is concerned, role of the petitioner is found to be
limited of inciting husband of the complainant. It is alleged that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18004/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
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. It is to
be noted that application filed by the complainant under DV Act
is dismissed and complainant is living with some third person in
relation like husband and wife
7. 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 petitioners 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
petitioners 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18004/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18004/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18004/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
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 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."
8. Coming back to the present case, except bald allegations
against the petitioner, who is brother in law of the complainant,
no specific incident or overtact is alleged against the petitioner.
FIR is found to be abuse of process of law against the petitioner
and allowing the petitioner to face trial would be absurd process.
9. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR
FIR being C.R.No.11191045210675 of 2021 registered with
Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad City as well as all
consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. Rule is
made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
