[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Manish Vinaychandrabhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 10658 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MANISH VINAYCHANDRABHAI RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present application is filed under section 482 of
Cr.PC for quashment of the FIR being 11203008210032/
2021 registered with Bilkha Police Station, Junagadh for
the offence punishable under section 504, 506(2) 507,
114 of IPC stating the offence, which is alleged to have
been committed from the period 25.11.2020 to
18.11.2020 as per the case of the complainant, in the
impugned FIR is that the marriage of the first informant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
was solemnized with accused no.1 and prior to 5 years
from the date of marriage, the accused no.1 was
engaged to accused no.2. Somehow, the marriage was
not solemnized and accused no.1 got married to the
complainant. As per the allegations, the dispute arose
between the husband and wife and she was thrown out
from the matrimonial house and therefore, complainant
filed application under section 125 of CrPC. It is
contended in the FIR that despite the order of
maintenance was passed, the husband never paid the
amount which is ordered by the learned Family Court
and has started living with the accused no.2 in live in
relationship agreement. On 30.11.2020, the complainant
received a call from the mobile of the accused no.2
informing that she may give divorce to the accused no.1
or would face dire consequences. Again, on 7.24 hours,
the brother of the applicant no.1 i.e applicant no.2 has
called and similar threats were issued to her. Thereafter,
she received calls from different four numbers and in all
four calls she received abusive language and inquiring
regarding the family of the complainant. With the above
allegations, the complaint came to be lodged on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
02.04.2021, which is the subject matter of challenge
before this Court.
1.1. The present applicant was arraigned as accused no.1,
who is the husband of complainant, the allegations made
against the present applicant is that dispite the order of
maintenance which is passed granting Rs.11,000/-
monthly, the applicant, except for once did not pay
thereafter and has started to live in with accused no.2 in
live-in relationship and thereafter, issued threats to the
complainant.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia for the
applicant and Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval for the
respondent-State. Rule is served, no one is appearing on
behalf of the complainant though she appeared in matter
of the co-accused being Cr.M.A. No.10670/2021 through
an advocate.
2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia submits that the
present applicant has filed the divorce petition on
17.03.2021 which is ultimately decreed on 30.12.2025
against which the complainant filed appeal before this
Court. It is submitted that the complainant has started
harassing the present applicant by creating a group
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
wherein, father of the applicant and other relatives were
joined and thereafter, started posting abusive messages.
It is submitted that the present applicant filed complaint
against the original complainant respondent no.2 on
28.06.2022 for the offence punishable under section 500,
501, 506(2) as well as the sister of present applicant has
also lodged FIR being 76 of 2020 for the same offence. It
is submitted that as a counter blast this FIR was filed
after a delay of 5 months without specifying the time and
against the applicant. Learned advocate also relies on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Diyalbhai
Lavjibhai Mathodiya Vs State of Gujarat reported in
2026 (0) AIJEL-HC 253092 and submitted that
continuation of process against the present applicant is
abuse of process of law as the ingredients of none of the
sections are satisfied and in that background the
impugned FIR requires to be quashed by allowing this
application.
2.2. Learned APP Mr.Ronak Raval has submitted that the
investigation is yet not concluded therefore, no
interference is called for at this stage and though Rule is
served, no one has appeared representing respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
no.2.
3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, this Court has
referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the
guidelines governing the exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(i) 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.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 Section 155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings 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.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide 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."
4. The question arising for consideration before this Court
is whether the case of the present applicant falls under
any of the criteria mentioned in the case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra)?
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
4.1. To determine the above question, if one would refer
the allegations made in the FIR, it emerges that the
present applicant has lodged the complaint against the
respondent no.2 on 28.06.2020 as well as the sister of
the present applicant has also lodged FIR 07.06.2020. It
also emerges from the record that though allegations are
made against the applicant that except for one occasion
the applicant has not paid amount of maintenance
however, the receipt annexed with the memo of petition
suggests that Rs.1,50,000/- is deposited on 01.10.2019
Rs.50,000/- is deposited on 30.11.2019 and it is
submitted by learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia, upon
instruction, that the applicant is regularly paying the
maintenance amount which is ordered by the learned
Family Court. Even otherwise, the allegation made
against the present applicant does not pertain to issuing
the threats directly to complainant however, he has
issued threats to accused no.2 and 3 against which this
Court has allowed the application and the FIR is quashed
in Cr.M.A No. 10670/2021.
4.2. Considering the entire background of events, the FIR
appears to be concocted and same would fall under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10658/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Criteria (i)(v) from the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). In
that background sending the applicants for trial is
unwarranted for and the ingredients of section 504,
506(2) 507, 114 are not satisfied. Therefore, impugned
FIR deserves to quashed as the same would amount to
abuse of process of law.
5. Resultantly, the present application is allowed. The FIR
being 11203008210032/ 2021 registered with Bilkha
Police Station, Junagadh as well as all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and
set aside.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
