Gujarat High Court
Ranjanben W/O Premjibhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/657/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 657 of 2021
==========================================================
RANJANBEN W/O PREMJIBHAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BRIJESH K RAMANUJ(9898) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR KEVAL G BRAHMBHATT (BAROT)(9900) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
MR.KISHORE PRAJAPATI(6305) 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 : 15/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned advocate for the petitioners does not press
present petition qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly,
present petition stands disposed of as not pressed qua
petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Interim relief qua them discontinue.
Notice/Rule discharged.
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. - 11993012200074 of 2020 registered with
Mahila Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498(A), 323, 506, 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all other consequential
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/657/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 as well as u/s 3 and 7 of the Dowry Act.
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 advocate for the private respondent 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. Learned APP, adopting the arguments of learned advocate
for the private respondent, requests to pass necessary orders.
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/SCR.A/657/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/657/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/657/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/657/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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 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."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/657/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/657/2021 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
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. - 11993012200074 of 2020 registered with
Mahila Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections
498(A), 323, 506, 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act 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 clarified that the FIR in question and subsequent
proceedings arising there-from in respect of the petitioner Nos.1
and 2 stands continued; without being influenced by any
observations made in this order.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
