Gujarat High Court
Rudrapratapsinh Hemantsinh Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Reserved On :-
Pronounced On : 15/09/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 16873 of 2024
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 16873 of 2024
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 15223 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RUDRAPRATAPSINH HEMANTSINH PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY S JAGIRDAR(2688) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR K B MAGHNANI(9673) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
1. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Ajay Jagirdar, for the
Petitioners, learned APP, Mr. Ronak Raval, for Respondent
No.1-State and learned Advocate, Mr. Tejas Barot, for the
original compliment - Respondent No.2.
2. As these matters arise out of matrimonial disputes
between original accused No.1-husband, i.e. Petitioner no.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 16873 of 2024,
which is filed seeking quashing of the impugned FIR,
bearing No. 11191008211713 of 2021, lodged by the
original complainant-wife with Chandkheda Police Station,
Ahmedabad, under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and by making almost identical
allegations, but elaborately, by way of the complaint filed
under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in
brief ' DV Act'), being Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 160 of 2025, pending before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Gandhinagar ('Trial Court', hereinafter),
which is challenged by way of Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 15223 of 2025, and as the complaint under
the DV Act is also in respect of matrimonial disputes
between the petitioners on the one hand and the
complainant on the other, these matters are taken up for
final hearing and disposal today with the consent of the
learner advocates for the parties and the same are now
being disposed of by way of this common order.
3. These matters were heard on 08.09.2025 and at that
time, while recording that both the learned advocates are
agreeable for final hearing 'Rule' was issued and the same
was waived by the learned APP, Mr. Raval, for Respondent
No.1-state and by learner Advocate, Mr. Barot, for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
original complainant-wife and these matters were kept for
orders today, i.e. on 12.09.2025.
4. As per the impugned FIR, the complainant-wife has
alleged that she and original accused No.1-Rudrapratapsinh
were working together and they fell in love and got married
on 26.11.2016. After their marriage the complainant went to
reside with her in-laws along with accused No.1-husband
and she stayed there for about one and a half month and
during that time she was subjected to mental torture by way
of taunting that she does not know household work and
how to cook etc.. Ultimately, she shifted to a different flat
along with original accused No.1-husband and started
residing separately. Thereafter, original accused No.1-
husband went to Canada on student visa on 18.07.2018
and at that time, the complainant-wife had paid a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- to original accused No.1-husband on
14.02.2018 and she also paid Rs.4,10,313/- towards
education fees to him on 15.02.2018.
4.1.1 Thereafter, the complainant-wife applied for
'Leave Without Pay' for the period of about 435 days and
went to Canada to join original accused No.1-husband and
there, she stayed with him between 25.06.2019 to
06.08.2020. However, she had to come back to India due to
pressure exerted by her father-in-law and mother-in-law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
(Here, it is relevant to note that original accused Nos.2, 3
and 5, i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law,
i.e. the wife of original accused No.4, did not file any petition
for quashing of the impugned FIR for the simple reason that
they participated in the trial, wherein, they came to be
acquitted by the learned 4 th Additional Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Gandhinagar, vide order dated 12.07.2024,
passed below Exhibit-32 in Criminal Case No. 2497 of
2022).
4.1.2 In view of the above the complainant-wife
returned to India and started staying with her in-laws.
When the mother of the complainant-wife was suffering
from Covid-19, as per the allegations made in the impugned
FIR, her in-laws treated the complainant-wife inhumanely
and they also did not return her 'Stridhan' given at the time
of her marriage.
4.1.3 As per the FIR, original accused No.1-husband
used to demand dowry from the complainant-wife and after
going to Canada, he also had turned drunkard and thereby,
he used to torture the complainant physically and mentally
in Canada, as well.
4.1.4 It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that in
November, 2020, original accused No.1-husband had called
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
the complainant-wife from Canada and has allegedly asked
her to borrow some money from other people, on account of
financial loss incurred by him in the stock market and
therefore the complainant wife, out of love and affection,
had sent a sum of Rs.2,20,531/-to him in Canada.
4.1.5 It is also averred in the impugned FIR that
though the complainant-wife was ready to move to Canada,
original accused No.1-husband did not sent her any
documents and instead on 23.10.2021 through email he
made allegations against the complainant-wife and informed
her that their ways are parted.
4.1.6 Thereafter, original accused No.5-brother-in-law
of the complainant-wife also went to Canada on student visa
in or around August, 2021, i.e. before about 3 months from
the date of filing of the impugned FIR. As per the FIR,
original accused No.5 also used to harass the complainant-
wife by making phone calls from Canada.
4.1.7 It is also stated in the impugned FIR that the in-
laws of the complainant-wife had come to her parental
house on 30.08.2021 and had quarreled with her.
Thereafter, on 12.10.2021, when the complainant-wife had
gone to the residence of her in-laws to take her belongings,
they did not allow her to enter the house and instead drove
her out and therefore, the impugned FIR is registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
4.1.8 The original accused No.1-husband and original
accused No.4 have also filed an application, being Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025 in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 16873 of 2024, whereby, they
have prayed for a direction to complainant-wife -
Respondent No.2 to give them Police Clearance Certificate
(PCC) through the concerned police stations, i.e. through
Police Inspector, Chandkheda Police Station and Adalaj
Police Station of Gandhinagar district. Aforesaid application
is also pending and is being decided with the main matters
by way of this common order.
4.2 By way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
15223 of 2025, the original accused Nos. 1 to 5 and the
petitioners, therein, have challenged the proceedings
initiated by the complainant-wife under the provisions of the
DV Act, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of
2025, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gandhinagar. The allegations made in the
complaint made under the DV act are almost identical and
similar to the allegations made in the impugned FIR, but,
they have been narrated in detail in the complaint made
under the DV Act and for that very reason both the learned
advocates had agreed that these matters be taken up for
hearing together and accordingly they are taken up for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
hearing and final disposal, today.
4.2.1 After the impugned FIR was registered against
petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 16873
of 2024 and others, as noted herein above, the in-laws, i.e.
original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5, had participated in the
trial, wherein, at the end of the trial they came to be
acquitted by the concerned trial Court vide order dated
12.07.2024, passed below Exhibit-32 in Criminal Case No.
2497 of 2022, in respect of the offences punishable under
sections 498A, 323, 294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition
act by giving them the benefit of doubt and therefore
original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 did not prefer any
application for quashing of the impugned FIR and that is
how Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 16873 of 2024
came to be filed only by original accused No.1- husband and
original accused No.4-brother-in-law, who also went to
Canada in or around August, 2021, i.e. prior to the
registration of the impugned FIR, whereas, Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 15223 of 2025 is filed by all
the five original accused persons - petitioners, therein,
seeking quashing of the complaint file under the DV act by
the complainant-wife.
5. Leaned Advocate, Mr. Jagirdar, appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
petitioners in these matters made the following
submissions;
(i) Pursuant to the registration of the impugned FIR,
during the course of trial the original accused Nos. 2,
3 and 5, i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-
in-law, participated in the trial of Criminal Case No.
2497 of 2022, wherein, at the end of the trial, they are
acquitted by the concerned trial court, whereas,
original accused Nos. 1 and 4, i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1
and 2 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
16873 of 2024, came to be protected by this Court,
while issuing notice on 28.08.2024 and therefore,
clearly as an after thought, after a period of more
than three years from the date of the filing of the
impugned FIR, the complaint under the DV Act came
to be filed by the complainant-wife, being Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2025, on the
very same set of facts and allegations, which are made
in the impugned FIR and therefore, the complaint
under the DV Act is also required to be quashed and
set aside on account of acquittal of original accused
Nos. 2, 3 and 5, which, in turn, came to be confirmed
by the learned 7th Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Gandhinagar (in short, 'Appellate Court'), vide
order dated 01.09.2025, passed below Exhibit-9 in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2024.
(ii) According to learned Advocate, Mr. Jagirdar, as
there is same set of evidence in respect of all the five
accused persons in respect of the offences under the
IPC, the evidences available in respect of original
accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 shall also be applicable in
respect of accused Nos. 1 and 4 as well and as the
nature of allegations is identical in respect of the
complaint under the DV Act and when, at the end of
the trial for the IPC offences, original accused Nos. 2,
3 and 5 have already been acquitted and that order is
also confirmed in criminal appeal by the appellate
court, the complaint filed under the DV act, which is
filed belatedly, is required to be quashed and set
aside.
(iii) Learned Advocate, Mr. Jagirdar, further
submitted that the impugned FIR was registered on
26.11.2021, whereas, the marriage between original
accused No.1-husband and the complainant-wife took
place on 26.11.2016 and the FIR, itself, indicates that
only about one and a half month after their marriage,
the compliment-wife and accused No.1-husband had
started residing separately and therefore, the
allegations made against original accused No.4 in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
impugned FIR are baseless, false and frivolous more
particularly, considering the fact that original accused
Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are acquitted by the concerned trial
court and the said order is also confirmed in criminal
appeal by the concerned appellate Court, as original
accused No.4 never resided with the complainant-
wife, except, for the initial period of one and a half
month and that too, as back as in the year 2016.
(iv) As far as accused No.1-husband is concerned, it
was submitted that as per the impugned FIR itself,
accused No.1-husband went to Canada on
18.07.2018 and then he did not return to India, until
the order dated 28.08.2024 came to be passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 16873 of
2024, whereby, original accused No.1-husband and
accused No.4-brother-in-law were granted protection
by this Court. Meaning thereby, accused No.1-
husband was not in India during the majority of time,
i.e. from 18.07.2018 onward. Further, the
complainant-wife herself, in the impugned FIR, has
admitted that she had applied for 'Leave Without Pay'
for 435 days and had gone to Canada, i.e. from
25.06.2019 to 06.08.2020, whereas, the impugned
FIR is filed on 26.11.2021, i.e. after the period of
about 15 months from the date she returned back to
India and such delay is not explained by her.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
(v) It was also submitted that when the alleged
offences are not committed on Indian soil, no FIR
could have been lodged by the complainant-wife
against accused No.1-husband in India or it can not
be said that any offence is committed by accused
No.1-husband in India, so as to compel him to face
the trial in India.
(vi) It was submitted that even the conduct of the
complainant-wife is also required to be taken into
consideration, as in the impugned FIR, she has stated
that on her return from Canada to India on
06.08.2020, she had straightaway gone to the house
of her in-laws and therefore, had accused No.1-
husband had ill-treated the complainant-wife or had
caused harassment to her in Canada, as alleged in
the impugned FIR, she would not have preferred to
stay with her in-laws and instead, she would have got
an FIR registered against the accused persons
immediately or at least, she would have gone to her
parental house, rather than going to her matrimonial
house.
(vii) It was submitted that in the instant case, the
complainant-wife in the impugned FIR has stated that
on returning India, she preferred to stay with her in-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
laws and that fact, itself, would go to show that there
was no cruelty or harassment meted out to her by
accused Nos.1-husband in Canada, as there is no
reference in the impugned FIR that she had even
made a whisper about such harassment to her to
anyone, including her family members.
(viii) Insofar as the allegations with regard to
demand of dowry are concerned, it was pointed out
that those allegations are absolutely false and
baseless, as in the impugned FIR, there is no
allegation made that there was any demand for dowry
made and instead, it is stated that in the year 2018,
the complainant-wife had given Rs.2,00,000/- and
Rs.4,10,313/- to accused No.1-husband towards
education fees for going to Canada, whereas, in the
year 2020, she had given a sum of Rs.2,20,531/- to
him, which was, as stated by the complainant-wife
herself, done by her out of love and affection, as
accused No.1-husband had allegedly incurred loss in
the stock market and there is no allegation of demand
of dowry is made. It was also submitted that the
demand of dowry also could not be proved qua
original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5, who came to be
acquitted by the concerned trial Court and which
order is also confirmed by the concerned appellate
Court. Therefore, when the allegations made against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
all the accused persons and the evidences are more or
less similar in nature, the same would also apply in
the case of accused No.1-husband and accused No.4-
brother-in-law and therefore, asking accused No.1-
husband and accused No.4-brother-in-law to stand
trial would amount to a futile exercise and hence, the
impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set
aside.
(ix) As regard the challenge to the proceedings under
the DV Act, by way of Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 15223 of 2025 is concerned, it was
submitted by learned Advocate, Mr. Jagirdar, that on
the identical set of facts, the impugned FIR is filed,
which culminated into Criminal Case No. 2497 of
2022, wherein, original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 stood
trial and ultimately, they came to be acquitted by the
concerned trial Court and the same was also
confirmed by the concerned appellate Court and
therefore, when the complaint under the DV Act is
filed on the very same set of facts and that too, after a
delay of three years from the date of filing of the
impugned FIR, without explaining the delay, then, the
proceedings under the DV Act would amount to abuse
and the misuse of the process of law and the same is
required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the
present petitions.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
5.1 By making the above submissions, it was prayed that
these matters be allowed.
6. Learned Advocate, Mr. Barot, appearing for
Respondent No.2-wife and learned APP, Mr. Raval,
appearing for Respondent No.1-State, though, vehemently
opposed these matters, they could not controvert the fact
that accused No.4-brother-in-law, as per the averments
made in the impugned FIR itself, had been residing
separately, except, for the initial period of one and a half
month from the date of marriage of the complainant-wife
with accused No.1-husband and further, prior to the
registration of the impugned FIR, i.e. somewhere in
September, 2021, accused No.4-brother-in-law had also
gone to Canada.
6.1 They were also unable to point out anything contrary
the fact that accused No.1-husband was in Canada from
18.07.2018 till August / September, 2024 and he had not
come to India in the interregnum and therefore, no offence,
if any is committed, can be said to have committed on
Indian soil.
6.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Barot, and learned APP, Mr.
Raval, further could not dislodge the fact that there is
nothing on the record to indicate that during the stay of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
complainant-wife in Canada between 25.06.2019 to
06.08.2020, she had made any complaints about the
harassment or mental torture meted out to her by accused
No.1-husband to anyone in Canada or there is any reference
about the same, either in the impugned FIR or in the
complaint filed under the DV Act, and instead, on reaching
India, complainant-wife had directly gone to her
matrimonial house and had stayed there for a considerable
long time, which would belie the entire story of harassment
and mental torture by her in-laws, as alleged by her in the
impugned FIR.
6.3 However, learned Advocate, Mr. Barot, and learned
APP, Mr. Raval, fairly conceded the fact that original
accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 stood the trial in connection with
Criminal Case No. 2497 of 2022, wherein, at the end of the
trial, they are acquitted by the concerned trial Court by
giving them the benefit of doubt and which order is also
confirmed by the concerned appellate Court.
6.4 They also fairly conceded the fact that the complaint
under the DV Act is filed by the complainant-wife on the
basis of the facts, which are almost identical to the facts
narrated in the impugned FIR filed by her and the only
difference is that in the complaint under DV Act, the
allegations are narrated by her a little elaborately and that
the same set of evidence shall also be applicable in the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
of accused No.1-husband and accused No.4-brother-in-law.
6.5 Learned Advocate, Mr. Barot, and learned APP, Mr.
Raval, could not challenge the fact that in the impugned
FIR, itself, there is no allegation made with regard to
demand of dowry by any of the accused persons and in fact,
at two places, where there is reference of some amount
having been paid by the complainant-wife to accused No.1-
husband, she has stated that she had done so out of love
and affection towards accused No.1, as on one occasion
education fees of accused No.1-husband was to be paid and
on the other occasion, accused No.1-husband had incurred
loss in the stock market.
6.6 The only averment made by the learned Advocate, Mr.
Barot, is that on her return from Canada, when the
complainant-wife went to reside with her in-laws, she was
harassed and tortured by them. However, the aforesaid
submission made by him has no legal force in view of the
fact that the trial Court has already acquitted original
accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5, which order is confirmed by the
concerned appellate Court, as well.
6.7 In any case, both learned Advocate, Mr. Barot, and
learned APP, Mr. Raval, prayed for the dismissal of these
matters.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
have also perused the material on record of Criminal Misc.
Application No. 16873 of 2024 and I find that so far as
original accused Nos. 2,3 and 5 are concerned, they stood
trial in connection with the impugned FIR, bearing Criminal
Case No. 2497 of 2022, where, the concerned trial Court
acquitted them, of course, by giving them the benefit of
doubt and when the said order was challenged by way of
Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2024 by the State, the appellate
Court dismissed the said appeal vide order dated
01.09.2024 and thereby, confirmed the order of acquital
passed by the concerned trial Court in respect of accused
Nos. 2, 3 and 5.
7.1 Insofar as accused No.1-husband is concerned, on
perusal of the impugned FIR, it is revealed that accused
No.1-husband left for Canada on 18.07.2018 and thereafter,
he did not come back to India till 28.08.2024, i.e. till the
protection was granted by this Court vide order dated
28.08.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16873
of 2024. Here, it may be noted that the impugned FIR came
to be filed by the complainant-wife only on 16.11.2021, i.e.
after accused No.1-husband went to Canada and therefore,
whatever allegations are made against accused No.1-
husband are required to be considered in respect of the
period prior to 18.07.2018, i.e. the date on which accused
No.1-husband left for Canada and learned Advocate, Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Barot, appearing for complainant-wife could not point out
that between 18.07.2018 to 28.08.2024, accused No.1-
husband had ever come back to India.
7.2 On perusal of the impugned FIR, I further find that
complainant-wife has stated therein that she and accused
No.1-husband used to work together and they fell in love
and ultimately, they got married on 26.11.2016. According
to complainant-wife, after their marriage she went to reside
with accused No.1-husband in a joint family and she stayed
with them for about a period of one and a half month,
where, allegedly she was mentally tortured by her in-laws,
who used to taunt her about household work and used to
say that she does not know how to cook. However, the
complainant-wife has made no allegations with regard to
demand of dowry against any of the accused persons
between 26.11.2016 to 18.07.2018. Although, the
complainant-wife has stated that she had given a sum of
about Rs.6,00,000/- to accused No.1-husband, the same
was given towards the payment of education fees of accused
No.1-husband and there is not a single averment made in
the impugned FIR that accused No.1-husband had
demanded the aforesaid amount from the complainant-wife
towards dowry.
7.3 The impugned FIR also indicates that after accused
No.1-husband went to Canada, the complainant-wife had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
applied for 'Leave Without Pay' and she also had gone to
Canada and had stayed with accused No.1-husband for
about 435 days, i.e. from 25.06.2019 to 06.08.2020. Even
if, there is allegation of harassment and mental torture are
said to have been made in the impugned FIR by the
complainant-wife at the hands of accused No.1-husband in
Canada, though, no such allegation is made, then also the
said offence or harassment can be said to have been
committed in a foreign country and not in India. There is no
material on record to indicate that the complainant-wife,
during her stay in Canada, had reported a single incident of
harassment or cruelty at the hands of accused No.1-
husband to any authority in Canada.
7.4 In the impugned FIR, the complainant-wife has also
stated that somewhere in November, 2020, accused No.1-
husband had called her from Canada and informed her to
borrow some amount from others, as he had incurred loss
in the stock market, whereupon, the complainant-wife had
transferred Rs.2,20,531/- in the bank account of accused
No.1-husband. However, the complainant-wife herself has
stated, in the impugned FIR, that she had done so out of
love and affection for accused No.1-husband and again
there is no allegation of demand of dowry is made.
7.5 Thus, considering that from the impugned FIR no case
is made out for either mental harassment and cruelty or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
demand of dowry against accused No.1-husband, coupled
with the fact that the original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 had
stood trial in connection with the very same FIR, where, the
concerned trial Court hold that the allegations with regard
to mental harassment and demand of dowry could not be
established by the prosecution and they were acquitted and
which order is also confirmed by the concerned appellate
Court, even if, accused No.1-husband is put to trial, the
same would result into a futile exercise, as the same set of
evidence, which were made applicable in the case of
accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5, shall also apply in the case of
accused No.1-husband being a co-accused, who was even
not in India between the years 2018 to 2024. Therefore,
when there are no allegations, with regard to mental
harassment or demand of dowry are made against accused
No.1-husband, the impugned FIR requires to be quashed
and set aside qua him.
7.6 Insofar as, accused No.4-brother-in-law is concerned,
as per the impugned FIR, itself, he had stayed with the
complainant-wife for a period of about one and a half month
only and that too in the year 2016 and thereafter, he never
resided with the complainant-wife, as she, along with
accused No.1-husband, was residing separately in a flat
owned by her father. Further, as averred by the
complainant-wife, accused No.4-brother-in-law also went to
Canada somewhere in September, 2021, i.e. before about
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
three months from the date of the filing of the impugned
FIR. Further, there is no specific allegation made against
accused No.4-brother-in-law and he is facing the same
allegations, which were made against accused Nos. 2, 3 and
5, who are already acquitted by the concerned trial Court.
Therefore, the case of accused No.4-brother-in-law is also
required to be considered in the light of the allegations
made against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 and the evidence
against them, so also the findings recorded by the
concerned trial Court, which are, in turn, confirmed by the
concerned appellate Court. In view of the fact that accused
No.4-brother-in-law is facing the same set of allegations,
which were leveled against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5, the
same set of evidence, which were available against accused
Nos. 2, 3 and 5, shall also be made applicable in his case as
well and therefore, I do not see any reason to continue the
proceedings, pursuant to the filing of the impugned FIR,
qua accused No.4-brother-in-law and the impugned FIR
requires to be quashed qua him, as well.
7.7 In other words, it can be said that the case of accused
No.1-husband and accused No.4-borther-in-law shall be
governed by the same set of evidence, on the basis of which
the trial Court acquitted original accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5
and therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed
qua both accused Nos. 1-huband and No. 4- brother-in-law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
7.8 So far as the complaint filed by the complainant-wife
under the provisions of the DV Act, bearing Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2025 is concerned, the
same was filed before the learned 8 th Additional Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar, on 07.01.2025, i.e.
after the concerned trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3
and 5 in connection with the proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 2497 of 2022, vide order dated 12.07.2024, whereby,
they came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 294(b) and 114 of the IPC and under
Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after
accused No. 1-husband and accused No.4-borther-in-law
were granted protection by this Court vide order dated
28.08.2024, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 16873 of 2024 and therefore, the impugned complaint
under the provisions of the DV Act came to be filed by the
complainant-wife, as an afterthought in January, 2025.
7.9 It is pertinent to note that the allegations made in the
complaint under the DV Act are almost identical to the
allegations made by the complainant-wife in the impugned
FIR, but, they are made elaborately in the complaint under
the DV Act. Here, it is relevant to note that in the impugned
FIR as well as in the complaint filed under the DV Act in
January, 2025, the complainant-wife herself has stated
that, at least, since 12.10.2021, she has not been residing
with the accused persons. Thus, there is a delay of about
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
three years in filing the complaint under the DV Act, which
is not explained by her in the impugned complaint. Thus, in
view of the fact that the impugned complaint under the DV
Act came to be filed by the complainant-wife only after
accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are came to be acquitted by the
concerned trial Court, which order was also confirmed by
the concerned appellate Court, and after accused No.1-
husband and accused No.4-brother-in-law were granted
protection by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024. Under
the circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings
under the DV Act would amount to abuse and the misuse of
the process of law and therefore, the same also requires to
be quashed and set aside.
8. In the result, Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos.
16873 of 2024 as well as Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 15223 of 2025 are allowed and the
impugned FIR, bearing No. 11191008211713 of 2021,
lodged by the original complainant-wife with Chandkheda
Police Station, Ahmedabad, under Sections 498A, 323,
294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections
3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all other
proceedings arising from the said FIR are quashed and set
aside qua accused No.1-husband and accused No.4-
brother-in-law, whereas, the complaint under the DV Act,
bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of
2025, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16873/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
Court, Gandhinagar, is quashed and set aside qua all the
accused persons.
8.2 In view of the fact that the impugned FIR and criminal
complaint filed under the DV Act are quashed and set aside,
the concerned petitioners may be issued Police Clearance
Certificate ('PCC') by the appropriate authorities, if, they are
not involved in any other offence and accordingly, no further
or any separate order is required to be passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025 in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 16873 of 2024 and the same
also stands disposed of, accordingly.
Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is
permitted.
Sd/-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
UMESH/-
