Ronakkumar Chandubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 6959 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Ronakkumar Chandubhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/SCR.A/8297/2021                                  ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 8297 of 2021

                      ==========================================================
                        RONAKKUMAR CHANDUBHAI PATEL(dismissed as not pressed). & ORS.
                                                Versus
                                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4
                      PETITION/APPEAL WITHDRAWN/DISMISSED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MR. HARDIK MEHTA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
                      No. 1
                      RICHA SHAH(7541) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                        Date : 26/09/2025

                                                         ORAL ORDER

By order 13.4.2022, noted that learned advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the petitioner does not press the petition qua petitioner No.1 Ronakkumar Chandubhai Patel who is husband of the respondent No. 2. Accordingly the petition is disposed of as not pressed qua him.

ORDER QUA REST OF THE PETITIONERS

1.1 The petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 are in-laws and sister- in-law of respondent No.2. The FIR is registered at Sector No. 7 Gandhinagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short "the Atrocities Act") alleging that the complainant-respondent No. 2 married to petitioner No.1, 7 years or prior to the filing of the FIR andwas not kept well in her matrimonial home after the marriage span of two years. The allegations are leveled that the petitioner who are in-laws making unnecessary altercation with the complainant and manipulating the husband to physically beat the complainant. The allegations are also leveled that they were using filthy and derogatory language and also stating that her in-laws were demanding dowry and stating that she did not bring anything from her parental home. They also used castiest words against her and threatened to kill her.

1.2 In the aforesaid circumstances the FIR was lodged once and the complainant left the matrimonial home and came to parental home.

1.3 In the background of aforesaid aspect the petitioner prayed for following relief under Section 482 of the CRPC.

A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing F.I.R. being C.R. No. 1-222 of 2019 It is respectfully stated and submitted that as per the allegations in the F.I.R., the alleged offence was committed on 02.10.2020, and the F.I.R. for the same is registered on 14.10.2020, thus, there is huge delay in registering the impugned F.I.R., for which no satisfactory explanations have been given by the respondent no.2, explaining such a huge delay, thus,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

the entire case of prosecution is concocted and not probable to be true, and the same is an afterthought of the respondent no.2.registered with Gandhinagar Sector- 7 Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar as well as the charge sheet filed therein being No. 1-5 of 2020 dated 15.01.2020 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto) and all consequential proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R..

(B) During pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. being C.R. No. 1-222 of 2019 registered with Gandhinagar Sector-7 Police Station, Dis Gandhinagar as well as the charge sheet filed therein being No. 1-5 of 2020 dated 15.01.2020 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto);

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

2. It is argument of learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that the allegations against the in-laws are general and vague. However, no specific words are spoken which could be treated as castiest slur to derogate the complainant about her caste. All the allegations are leveled only against the petitioner No.1-husband. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar would submit that the allegations against the in-laws and petitioner are limited to the extent that they manipulated the husband to beat the complainant. Apart from that there is no other allegations are there. Therefore he has submitted that the continuation of the proceedings against the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

petitioners are abuse of process of law.

3. Per contra the argument of learned advocate Ms. Richa Shah that there are allegations of demand of dowry by specific words in the FIR and it is also averred in the FIR that the complainant was harassed by using castiest slur therefore looking at the statement in the FIR the existence of that can be decided during the trial. Thus, urged this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction.

4. Learned APP Mr. Hardik Mehta joined submission with learned advocate Ms. Richa Shah. The FIR spells out that the complainant was married to the husband with a marriage span of 7 years and it was a love marriage. Prior to the filing of the FIR she was treated good for more than 2 ½ years and in the meanwhile she had given birth to a male child but then matrimonial discord took place. The FIR spells out that most of the allegations against petitioner No.1 who has chosen not to continue this petition.

5. As far as allegations against the petitioners who are in- law are concerned they not incident centric but words centric they are general, spacious as goods as vague. Those statements are remotely not attracting the offence of harassment of cruelty against the petitioners.

5.1 At this juncture finding and observation of Apex Court in case of Geddam Jhansi And Another v. State of Telangana

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

And Others reported in AIR 2025 SC 1578 is as under:-

"31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. Institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.

32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present appellants.

35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law."

6. In so far as offence under Section Atrocity Act are concerned again it can be noticed that no specific words which can be claimed as castiest slur which is stated in the Fir which is claimed to be spoken by the petitioner to derogate the complainant on her past.

6.1 In view of above, the offence under Atrocity Act are not attracted against the petitioner. Reference can be made in the case of Karuppudayar vs State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Others [2025

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

SCC OnLine SC 215], the Apex Court examined the terms public view and has held in paragraph 10 to 11 as under:

"9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would reveal that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.

10. The term "any place within public view" initially came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel2. This Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand3 referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as under:

"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even if the remark is made inside a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."]. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."

(emphasis in original)"

11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within public view', the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view."

7. Thus, the ingredients alleged under the Atrocities Act are missing from the FIR. None of the allegations made in the FIR would attract the offence under the Atrocities Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8297/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025

undefined

8. The petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R No. I-222 of 2019 registered with Gandhinagar Sector-7 Police Station, Dist Gandhinagar as well as the charge sheet being No. I-5 of 2020 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom the same FIR are quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKAN