Gujarat High Court
Madhuben D/O. Kanjibhai Mankadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 5 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/778/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 778 of 2020
==========================================================
MADHUBEN D/O. KANJIBHAI MANKADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P B KHANDHERIA(5228) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to quash
and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I - 93 of 2019 registered with
Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City for the offences under Sections
498A, 504, 323, 114 of Indian Penal Code and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Seeking quashment of questioned FIR, learned advocate for
the petitioner submits that petitioner is maternal aunt of the
complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has made
general allegations against the petitioner in typical fashion to
enrope petitioner 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) and 504 of IPC. Reading questioned FIR, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/778/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
advocate for the petitioner submits that right to file FIR has been
misused by complainant and it is filed to pressurize the
petitioner and therefore, it is submitted to allow the petition.
3. Learned advocate for the complainant 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. Learned APP while adopting the arguments of learned
advocate for the complainant, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. The FIR also indicates general allegation against the
present petition and the essential ingredients of section 498A of
the IPC are missing against the petitioner.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/778/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
far as petitioner are concerned, role of the petitioner 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/778/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
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/778/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
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/778/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
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."
9. In recent 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/778/2020 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
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."
10. Coming back to the present case, except bald allegations
against the petitioner, 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.
11. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR
being C.R.No.I - 93 of 2019 registered with Mahila Police Station,
Rajkot City as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the
petitioner herein. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
