Gujarat High Court
Dhaval Nitinbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 26 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3108 of 2017
==========================================================
DHAVAL NITINBHAI SHAH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ADDL. PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. RADHESH Y VYAS(7060) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that
amongst the petitioners, petition No.3 has passed away and
he also placed on record the death certificate, which indicates
that on 9th February 2022, petition No.3 has expired. Said
death certificate is taken on record. Hence, present petition
qua petitioner No.3 stands abated.
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed to quash
and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.I- 95 of 2016 registered with
Navapura Police Station, Dist Vadodara for the offences
punishable u/s 498(A), 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and u/s
3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as charge sheet and
Criminal Case No. 52725 of 2016 pending before the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara and all the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 That respondent no.2 came in contact with petitioner
no.1 in August 2014 through a marriage portal shaadi.com
and thereafter, the marriage of petitioner no.1 and respondent
no.2 was solemnized on 15.02.2015 at Vadodara. It is further
alleged that the petitioners had coerced her to get dowry from
her parental home. The petitioners had stayed in a flat
booked by respondent no.2 in Vadodara and allegedly, when
respondent no.2 went to meet them, at that time, petitioners
had told respondent no.2 to purchase an apartment for
petitioner no.1 in America and as to why she had not brought
gold and silver along with her. It is further alleged that
petitioner no.3 had slapped respondent no.2 and allegedly,
with a view to see that her matrimonial life does not get
jeopardized, respondent no.2 tolerated the harassment at the
end of petitioners. It is further alleged that thereafter,
petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 had gone to Gateway
Hotel, Akota where respondent no.2 had informed petitioner
no.1 about the aforesaid incident and allegedly, petitioner
no.1 misbehaved with her. It is alleged that thereafter, when
respondent no.2 and petitioner no.1 had gone to Lonawala for
three days and during that time, allegedly, petitioner no.1
behaved badly with respondent no.2. It is further the case of
respondent no.2 that she came to know that petitioner no.1
was not physically able and allegedly, petitioner no.1 got
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
furious when she discussed with him that he was not
physically able. It is further the case of respondent no.2 that
she had also informed this to petitioner no.3. However,
allegedly, she threatened respondent no.2 and insisted her to
go to USA with petitioner no.1.
2.2 That since petitioners were pressurizing her for
processing VISA file of petitioner no.1, the respondent no.2
went to Delhi Consulate office and the VISA file of petitioner
no.1 was rejected due to which, petitioner no.1 got angry on
her. It is alleged that thereafter while petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.2 were travelling in an Auto Rickshaw at that
time, certain persons came on a motorbike and snatched away
the purse of respondent no.2 containing her passport and
other important documents and for which complaint was also
registered with Samtanagar Police Station. It is the case of
respondent no.2 that the said incident was planned by
petitioner no.1 with a view to see that respondent no.2 is
unable to leave India. It is alleged that parents of respondent
no.2 met with the demand of dowry of petitioners and
allegedly, petitioners subjected her to physical and mental
harassment and torture. With the aforesaid and other
allegations the FIR is registered against the petitioners.
3. Learned advocate, Mr. Majmudar for the petitioners
would submit that the complainant private respondent is a US
citizen, was married to petitioner No.1 on 15th February 2015
at Vadodara and pursuant to that, on spouse visa, the petition
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
No.1 went to US. However, the marriage did not work well
between both the parties, and therefore, a divorce petition
was filed on 12th April 2016 by the private respondent
complainant before the Superior Court, New Jersey Chancery
Division, Family Part Middlesex County being Docket No.FM-
12-2107-16X. He would further submit that in the petition
filed by the complainant before the Superior Court at New
Jersey, she has not raised any contention, which she has
raised in the FIR filed on 21st September 2016. Therefore, he
would submit that filing of FIR is nothing but pressurized
tactics. He would further submit that the complainant in the
petition filed at USA did not raise any contention that she was
subjected to harassment and cruelty or some dowry was
demanded from her. In contrast, the complainant was paying
maintenance of 300 US dollar to the petitioner No.1 and in
that circumstances, the FIR in question subsequently
culminated into charge sheet is found to be abuse of process
of law.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr Majmudar would further submit
that the Superior Court at New Jersey passed a divorce decree
on 16th December 2016, even at that time or during the
hearing of the matter also, the complainant did not raise
contention that she has been harassed and dowry was
demanded from her by her husband and her in-laws. Thus, he
would submit that the FIR has been used to harass the
petitioners, who are now living in USA.
3.2 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr
Majmudar requests to allow this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr Radhesh Vyas
appearing for the complainant wife would submit that the
petitioner and her family members have siphoned gold
ornaments of the complainant i.e. Stridhan of the
complainant. He would further submit that the complainant
has made a complaint to the police inspector navapura police
station, which indicates that prior to marriage, the petitioners
have demanded 110 tola of gold, one lavish car and flat and all
the expenditure to go to usa and thus, it prima facie
established that dowry was demanded by the petitioners prior
to marriage and thus, committed the offence under sections
three and seven of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He would
further submit that there are other instances stated by the
complainant in the FIR, which indicates that she was
subjected to harassment and cruelty, and all these issues
being disputed questions of fact be decided during trial. He
would further submit that since the petitioners are not
extending cooperation, the court at Vadodara has issued non-
vailable warrant.
4.1 Upon above submission, he would submit to dismiss the
petition.
5. Learned APP in a private dispute between the parties
while remaining with the argument of learned advocate Mr.
Radesh Vyas, would submit to pass necessary orders.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and
applying anxious thoughts and consideration with the rival
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
submissions, what could be noticed is the order passed by the
Superior Court at New jersey dated 16th December 2016 by
which dual final judgement of divorce was delivered by the
judge presiding the Superior Court. The judgement is placed
on record at Anexure F, which is reproduced as under:-
"Omar K. Qadeer, Esq. (NJ State Bar ID: 04245-2009)
Law Office of Omar K. Qadeer, P.C.
860 Route 1 North - Suite 110
Edison, NJ 08817
Phone (732) 947-4795
Fax (866) 524-2466
[email protected]
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY : CHANCERY DIVISION,
FAMILY PART
BHOOMI BALKRUSHNA PATEL,
: MIDDLESEX VICINAGE
Plaintiff,
VS.
DOCKET NO: FM-12-2107-16X
DHAVAL NITIN SHAH,
CIVIL ACTION
Defendant.
: DUAL FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE
THIS MATTER having come before the Honorable Daniel
Brown, J.S.C., in the presence of the Defendant and Omar K.
Qadeer, Esq. of the Law Office of Omar K. Qadeer, P.C.
attorney for the Defendant and the Plaintiff and the attorney
for the Plaintiff, Michael Pocchio, Jr. Esq., Plaintiff; and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
parties having pleaded and proved a cause of action for
divorce under the laws of the State of New Jersey, N.J.S.A.
2A:34-2; and it appearing that Plaintiff and Defendant were
married, and jurisdiction having been acquired over the
parties pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-10, - 11 and/or -12, and
findings of fact and conclusions of law having been placed on
the record as of this date and incorporated herein by
reference;
IT IS on this 16th day of December, 2016, FOUND, as follows:
1. This matter being opened to the Court on or about April
12th, 2016, by the Plaintiff, represented by Michael Pocchio,
Jr. Esq..
2. That the Plaintiff and Defendant were married on February
15th, 2015, in a religious ceremony in Baroda, India.
3. At the time of filing her matrimonial Complaint, Plaintiff
was a bona fide resident of the State of New Jersey, residing
within Middlesex County.
4. The parties have certified that there was an irreversible
breakdown of the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant,
at least six (6) months prior to the filing of Plaintiff's
Complaint for Divorce, and that there is no hope of
reconciliation.
5. There are no children born of the marriage and none are
expected.
6. The parties having pleaded and proven a cause of action for
divorce pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2(i).
ORDERED that pursuant to the proofs in such case made and
provided, the marriage between the parties be, and the same
hereby is dissolved pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-2., and the
parties are divorced from the bonds of matrimony; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that neither party be awarded
alimony.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that neither party is requesting
equitable distribution under State of New Jersey Statute:
2A:34-23.1, and both parties are waiving their respective
rights to any further discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff and Defendant will
be responsible for their own attorneys fees, if any
outstanding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the parties are directed to
abide by the terms of this.. Judgment of Divorce, have entered
into it voluntarily and freely, without coercion or duress, not
under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, and are satisfied
with their respective counsel.
All issues and claims pled or unpled are here are withdrawn
and/or abandoned."
7. This judgement has been consented by the complainant.
In view of above, it can be noticed that subsequent to filing of
FIR, no dispute remains between the parties and since then
their marriage was irrevocably broken down, the Superior
Court at new jersey granted the divorce.
8. In view of above, it would be presumed that the
complainant, who is US citizen came in India to file the
questioned FIR only with a view to pressurize the petitioners
and since the parties have departed from each other's life, the
issue may have been put to the rest.
9. Without entering into the further merits of the case and
looking to the diverse decree passed by the supervisor court
in New jersey, I am of the opinion that now no point is
survived to send the petitioners to face the trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
10. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR
1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the
proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(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 ins the F.I.R. and other
materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the
F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence
and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 bare engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the
institution 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3108/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with malafide 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."
10.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7
are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present
petition deserves consideration.
11. In the result, present petition is allowed and impugned
FIR being C.R. No.I- 95 of 2016 registered with Navapura Police
Station, Dist Vadodara as well as charge sheet and Criminal
Case No. 52725 of 2016 pending before the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners
are hereby quashed and set aside. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
