Gujarat High Court
Kundan Narendra Padia vs State Of Gujarat on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3652 of 2020
==========================================================
KUNDAN NARENDRA PADIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
S D MANSURI(7509) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BHAKTI M JOSHI(3820) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of
the FIR being C.R.No.I - 25 of 2019 registered with Mahila Police
Station, Surat against the petitioner for the offences punishable
under the sections 498(A), 323, 504, 114 and 506(2) of Indian
Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of
Dowry Act qua the petitioner.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mansuri for the petitioner,
learned advocate Ms.Joshi for respondent no.2 and learned APP
Mr.Joshi for respondent - State.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner is mother in law of the complainant. Taking to the FIR
learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that general
allegations are made against the petitioner and no such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
ingredients of the alleged offence is attracted if the FIR is read at
its face value. It is submitted that allegations made against the
petitioner is false and frivolous. It is further submitted that there
is delay in filing FIR. It is submitted that allegations are made
against the petitioner without any evidence on record. It is
submitted that petitioner and her family members have treated
the first informant as her daughter and had celebrated expected
arrival of baby girl by hosting baby shower. It is submitted that
respondent no.2 and husband entered into separation agreement
for dissolution of marriage and it was reduced in writing by way
of contract, wherein, it was decided that applicant will pay $ 500
(Rs.34,4000/- appx.) per month to respondent no.2 apart from
one time payment of Rs.7 lakhs.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Mansuri for the petitioner further
submitted that after receiving alimony every month, first
informant stated that said contract was executed forcefully. It is
submitted that upon return to USA in December, 2018, the first
informant started quarrel with her husband and threatened him
that she will fly back to India with baby girl and will not see her
daughter. It is submitted that at no point of time, respondent
no.2 was subjected to any cruelty by petitioner who is mother. It
is also submitted that petitioner never demanded any dowry
from respondent no.2.
3.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that if
the FIR is read as it is no such ingredients of the alleged offence
is found prima facie to have been attracted qua the petitioner
and therefore by making above submissions, he would submit to
allow this petition and to quash the FIR. In support of his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
submission, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on
judgment of this Court in the case of Patel Chetankumar
Bharatkumar v/s. State of Gujarat [2025 (0) AIJEL-HC
250078].
4. Learned advocate Ms.Joshi for the respondent no.2
submits that petitioner who is mother in law of complainant
since beginning used to harass the complainant to bring dowry
and was subjected to cruelty. It is submitted that there is no
settlement between the parties. It is submitted that false
statement was made that consensual divorce was in process
before this Court and on such statement, this Hon'ble Court has
protected the petitioner at the admission stage of petition. It is
also submitted that petitioner was inciting husband of the
complainant and therefore, let trial to conduct against the
petitioner to test veracity of the allegations. It is submitted that
divorce deed was executed between the parties (Annexure D) and
as per divorce deed, the husband of the complainant was
required to transfer amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to complainant as
deposit till girl baby attained age of majority and every month
500$ as also to be deposited / transferred as maintenance
amount of minor child. It is submitted that no maintenance
amount is paid to respondent no.2 till date. It is also submitted
that petitioner is residing in foreign country without valid
documents and her passport is also impounded. Therefore, it is
submitted to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned APP for the respondent State submitted that prima
facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that
as per FIR, complainant was harassed physically and mentally
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
for dowry. It is submitted that petitioner being mother in law
used to instigate and provoke husband. It is submitted that
complainant was consistently harassed after marriage. It is
submitted that truthfulness of allegations cannot be examined at
this stage. It is submitted that all the contentions raised by the
petitioner can be examined by the competent Court when trial is
conduced. In addition this submissions, it is submitted that
petitioner has violated bail conditions instead of depositing
passport with Trial Court, petitioner breached bail condition and
flew to foreign country and she is staying on invalid documents.
It is also submitted that passport of the petitioner is impounded.
It is also submitted that petitioner is not co-operating in
investigation. It is submitted that section 70 of Cr.P.C warrant
has been issued against the petitioner. Lookout notice is also
issued against the petitioner which indicates that petitioner is
not co-operating in investigation and therefore, it is submitted to
dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having
perused material on record, the question arise whether FIR
against petitioner is required to be quashed or not. On perusal
of evidence on record, it appears that petitioner herein is mother
in law of complainant. In the instant case, allegations in the FIR
are under section 498A of IPC and under provisions of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
7. On perusal of FIR, it would indicate that petitioner alleged
to have demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and
physical trauma to the complainant and she was subjected to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
cruelty. Complainant started to reside with mother in law and
husband at America. After wedlock, she gave birth to girl child.
Petitioner who is mother in law used to pick up quarrel with
complainant. The complainant was continually harassed by
petitioner from the date of marriage. This picture of harassment
and cruelty prima facie emerge on plain reading of FIR. Prima
facie, it appears that complainant has made case against the
petitioner. Normally, the Court quashes FIR against in laws,
since FIR filed against them with oblique purpose to pressurize
but in the case on hand, the petitioner and her son - husband of
complainant having joined hand, extended cruelty and
harassment upon the complainant.
8. All the contentions raised by the petitioner can be
examined by the competent Court when trial is conduced. This
Court in inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code cannot
appreciate them by holding mini trial.
9. In the case of Neeharika Infrastrure Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State
of Mahabharata [2021 SCC Online 315], the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that quashing of FIR is an exception rathar than
an ordianry rule and the High Court should exercise the powers
under section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly with circumspection.
10. In Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 185, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the position
of law for quashing the FIR as under:-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC,
may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes
or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers
are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory
provision. However, given the broad and profound nature
of this authority, the High Court must exercise it
sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are
embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing
the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of
process or where intervention is essential to uphold the
ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of
several decades, has laid down the principles and
guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing
criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-
empting the Prosecution from building its case before the
Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia,
contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal
complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR
represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima
facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature;
(v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus
allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and
compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."
15. The aforesaid parameters indicates that the FIR can be
quashed in a situation where criminal complaint has been filed
with mala fide or the FIR represents an abuse of the legal
process or no prima facie offence is made out or the complaint
contains vague allegations. Learned advocate for the petitioner,
however, failed to establish any such parameters touched to the
case on hand.
16. The truthfulness and/or otherwise of the allegations
cannot be gone into by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the finding of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 643. It was observed:-
"13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the
Court would not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the
stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. However, the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint, if taken at their face value, must disclose
the commission of an offence and make out a case
against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the
present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint,
even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the
commission of an offence or make out a case against the
accused. We are of the considered view that the present
case would fall under Category-3 of the categories
enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal
(supra)."
17. Simultaneously, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of
the Code, the Court cannot hold mini trial and appreciate the
evidence. [See: Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of
Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392 as well as in case of CBI v.
Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399]. The relevant para from the
judgment reads as under:-
"17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that
while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not
supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can
be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v.
Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC
379]. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is
extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7)
6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers under
Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct
the mini-trial. ...
7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while
exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the
Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to
consider 'whether any sufficient material is available
to proceed further against the accused for which the
accused is required to be tried or not'."
18. It is also to be noted that there was divorce deed which is
produced at Annexure D it is dated 15.12.2017. As per said
deed, it was decided that husband of the complainant would
transfer an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as deposit till baby girl
attains age of majority and every month, husband was supposed
to transfer $ 500 as maintenance towards minor child. No
amount of maintenance was paid to the complainant. It is to be
noted that complainant is destitute lady and presumed to be in
pecuniary. Petitioner and her son has left the complainant in
void, as such complainant is not only facing financial vagrancy
but also cruelty and harassment. She having no source of
income has to upkeep daughter also. As on date, it is submitted
that more than Rs.50 lakhs is outstanding towards
maintenance.
19. One more aspect to be noted in the case on hand is that
that the petitioner is evading process. The petitioner is running
out of hand of law. She is not co-operating. Section 70 warrant
against the petitioner is issued. That Lookout notice is also
issued against the petitioner. It is to be mentioned that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
petitioner has not challenged issuance of warrant under section
70 of Cr.P.C. or lookout notice. At this state, I may refer to
judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sumer Singh
Salkan v/s. Asstt. Director [ 2010 (6) ILR (Del) 706]. Relevant
para 11 of the said judgment reads as under :-
"11. Look-out-Circular has also been issued against the
petitioner as the petitioner is an accused before the Court of
M.M. and he has not appeared before the Court of M.M. If
the petitioner gives an undertaking before the court for his
appearance on a particular date, through his counsel, the
Lookout-Circular issued against the petitioner shall be
withdrawn within 24 hours of giving undertaking by the
petitioner. The questions raised in the reference are as
under:
"A. What are the categories of cases in which the
investigating agency can seek recourse of Lookout-Circular
and under what circumstances?
B. What procedure is required to be followed by the
investigating agency before opening a Lookout-circular?
C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom
such Look-out-Circular has been opened?
D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case
is brought before it and under what circumstances, the
subordinate courts can intervene?
The questions are answered as under:
A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in
cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where
the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not
appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive
measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving
the country to evade trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for
LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The
competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC
by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join
investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender
before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that
LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also
approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain
that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be
withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be
rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having
jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application
by the person concerned.
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to
the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate
courts' jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is
commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs
or affirming NBWs."
20. As stated herein-above, the petitioner has neither
challenged warrant under section 70 or Lookout notice, which
suffice to say that the petitioner is evading arrest and even in
these circumstances, FIR qua the petitioner cannot be quashed.
21. Apt to note, petitioner was released on conditional bail, one of
the condition is to deposit her passport. However, breaching the
condition of bail, the petitioner flew to USA. When the issue was
confronted to learned advocate Mr.Mansuri for the petitioner, he was
not in position to reply. Thus, conduct of the petitioner also makes out
that she is not entitled to get discretionary relief.
22. The judgment relied by the learned advocate for the
petitioner in the case of Patel Chetankumar Bharatkumar
(supra) is not helpful to the petitioner in the facts of present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
case.
23. For the reasons stated herein-above, the petition is
dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if
any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
