Gujarat High Court
Bhavnaben Ramabhai Bharvad vs State Of Gujarat on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3187/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3187 of 2014
==========================================================
BHAVNABEN RAMABHAI BHARVAD & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMANT MAKWANA(3622) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR NATVAR D BHARWAD(5744) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR VISHAL B MEHTA(5319) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, petitioners seeks to quash the FIR being CR
No. 146 of 2014 registered with Chandkheda Police Station,
Ahmdedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 365,
114 of Indian Penal Code & Section 3 (1) (15) of the Gujarat
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocity), Act
1989.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are the parents namely father
and mother of the petitioner no. 1, i.e. victim who is alleged to
have kidnapped by her parents and family members as per the
version of the complainant. It may be submitted that petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3187/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
no.1 had got her marriage solemnized with the son of
complainant i.e Mehul in accordance with Hindu rituals on
25.02. 2014. The bridegroom and bride had jointly approached
this Hon'ble Court by way of filing Special Criminal Application
No. 1289 of 2014, inter alia, seeking protection and safety for
their lives and accordingly, this Court gave security cover at the
cost of the petitioners therein.
2.2 On 18.07.2014, the complainant had lodged FIR, inter alia,
alleging that her daughter in law was forcibly taken away by her
parents i.e. petitioner nos. 2 & 3 as per the information given to
the complainant on her mobile. It has been stated that the
daughter in law of the complainant had gone to meet her parents
on the ground floor. However, she was pulled up by the
unknown person in Alto Car as per the version of Eye witness.
The incident came to be registered as C.R.I-146 of 2014 with
Chandkheda Police Station for the offences punishable under
Section 365, 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (15) of
Gujarat Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, (Prevention of
Atrocity), Act 1989.
2.3 The daughter of the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 had married to a
son of complainant i.e. Mehul. As such, she had not been
kidnapped by the parents and the family members, but she
volunteered to come to her parental house because of the
differences between her husband and the family members. She
is peacefully living with the petitioner nos. 2 & 3. However, the
FIR came to be registered with a view to pressurize the parents of
the girl. The petitioner no.1 had sworn in her affidavit before the
Notary/public stating that she was tortured by her in laws and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3187/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
she was not kidnapped by her parents and family members.
2.4 The petitioner No.1 had also filed complaint before the
Police Inspector, Sola Police Station, stating that she herself had
come to her parental home and as she could not tolerate ill
treatment at the hands of her in laws and she had also informed
to the local police i.e. Chandkheda Police Station with regard to
her being not kidnapped but voluntarily returned to her parental
place.
3. Heard learned advocates for respective parties. This is a
case alleged by the mother-in-law that her daughter-in-law has
been forcibly taken away by her parents and other allied of
parents and therefore offence under Section 365, 114 of Indian
Penal Code & Section 3 (1) (15) of the Gujarat Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocity), Act 1989 has been
registered.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Makwana appearing for the
petitioner submited to the Court that the party has settled their
dispute i.e. Family Suit No. 1941 of 2017 which was filed before
the Family Court, Ahmedabad whereby decree of divorce was
filed which was granted under Section 13(B) of the Hindu
Marriage Act 1955. He further submitted that a proceeding filed
by way of Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.
3081 of 2014. The Corpus that is the wife of the petitioner has
told to the Court that her parents has not taken away her
forcibly and she would like to stay with her parents. Learned
advocate Ms. Dhruma Vyas appearing on behalf of learned
advocate Mr. Vishal B. Mehta also confirms this aspect.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3187/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
5. It is to note that petitioner No.1 was married to Mehul and
it was the love marriage. According to the case of the
prosecution, petitioner no.1 was taken away by her parents and
other persons. However, in a Habeas Corpus petition, the Corpus
made statement before the Court that she has not been taken
forcibly by her parents or anybody. In Special Criminal
Application (Habeas Corpus) No.3081 of 2014, the Division
Bench of this Court has recorded the statement of Corpus as
under:
"Upon issuance of rule, today, when the matter
is taken up for hearing, she is present in the
Court and is accompanied by her parents and
upon a query, she states that at present, she
would like to live with her parents and no one
had taken away forcibly and she would like to
stay with her parents.
In view of willingness expressed by corpus to
stay with parents and as she is major, we are
inclined to allow to her to do so and this habeas
petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule
discharged."
6. The above statement of the Corpus makes it evidently and
manifestly clear that she was not abducted. Moreover, the
divorce took place between husband and wife and both are living
separately now.
7. FIR taken on its face also indicates non-existence of any
allegations which may attract the offence under the provisions of
Atrocities Act.
8. In view of above, while taking assistance from the
judgment of the Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp,(1) SCC 335, sending the petitioner for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3187/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
trial will be an absurd process.
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch.
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by
this court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Art.
226 or the inherent powers under sec. 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases
by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of sec. 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a noncognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under sec. 155(2) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3187/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/06/2025
undefined
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding
is instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
9. Hence, petition is allowed. Impugned FIR being CR No. 146
of 2014 and all the consequential proceedings arisen from the
same are hereby quashed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
AHS
