[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Pragnaben W/O Amitbhai Sudhirbhai ... vs Amit Sudhirbhai Amlani on 12 March, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 656
of 2026
==========================================================
PRAGNABEN W/O AMITBHAI SUDHIRBHAI AMLANI
Versus
AMIT SUDHIRBHAI AMLANI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 12/03/2026
ORDER
1. The present revision application has been filed by the
original complainant with the following prayers:
(A) Admit this Criminal Revision Application and call for the
record and proceedings of Criminal Case No.11170 of 2021
from the Court of Ld. 3 rd Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at
Porbandar;
(B) Allow this Criminal Revision Application by quashing and
setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed in
Criminal Case No.11170 of 2021 passed by the Court of learned
3rd Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Porbandar; dated
01.01.2026 as well as the Judgment and order passed by the Ld.
Add. District and Sessions Judge at Porbandar rejecting the
Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2023 and thereby convict the
respondent no.1 for the charges leveled against him in the
interest of Justice;
Or in the alternative
Remand the case to the Court of Ld. 3 rd Add. Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court at Porbandar for its fresh consideration in
accordance with law.
(C) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit,
just and proper in the interest of justice.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
2. Learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya has submitted
that there is a concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as
appellate Court acquitting the accused in connection with the
complaint filed at Mahila Police Station, which came to be
registered as Cr. No.11218001210011 under Sections 323,
498A, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC.
2.1 Advocate Mr. Gondaliya has submitted that the Trial
Court had not appreciated the evidence of the complainant
and her brother in right perspective; the Trial Court was
required to believe the prosecution case. Mr. Gondaliya
submitted that the learned Trial Court discarded the evidence
of brother of the complainant on the ground that the evidence
of brother of the complainant is hear say evidence.
2.2 According to learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya the Trial
Court has not recorded any reason to disbelieve the
deposition of the witnesses; no reasons have been assigned
for recording of acquittal for the offence under Section 498A
of the IPC.
2.3 Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya referring to the
observation made by the appellate Court submitted that the
appellate Court committed serious error of law in merely
recording in para-14 of the Judgment that the Trial Court has
given cogent reasons and then passed the order of acquittal
observing that no illegality has been committed by the Trial
Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
2.4 According to learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya, the
appellate Court was required to appreciate the evidence, as
recorded before the Trial Court and was required to give its
own independent reasoning for not believing the deposition of
both the witnesses. Mr. Gondaliya stated that the order of the
appellate Court is non-speaking order, without any proper
reasoning and has erroneously discarded the evidence of the
witnesses.
3. Countering the arguments, learned APP Mr. Bhargav
Pandya submitted that the provisions under Section 401 sub-
section (3) of Cr.P.C. with the analogous provision under
Section 442 sub-section (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), does not authorise this Court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
3.1 Learned APP Mr. Pandya further stated that the revision
has been filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial
Court and the appellate Court, where both the Courts have
analyzed the evidence in accordance to the provision of
Section 498A IPC, where the Court was required to follow the
definition, as provided under the explanation 498A IPC to
term the action of the husband as of cruelty.
3.2 Learned APP submitted that since the State has not
found any reason to challenge the Trial Court's observation,
hence, no appeal was filed. The appeal was filed by the
complainant herself and the complainant had filed the appeal
in accordance with the proviso of Section 372 Cr.P.C., which
was considered by the appellate Court and thus, Mr. Pandya
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
submitted that unless and until an explicit right has not been
granted by the BNSS, the present complainant cannot assume
the power to move this Court under the revision jurisdiction.
4. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, for
better understanding, the provision under Section 442 sub-
section (3) of BNSS requires reproduction, which reads as
under:
442. High Court's powers of revision --
(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a
High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction.
4.1 The section restricts the High Court's power under the
revisional jurisdiction to entertain any matter, where the
prayer would be for converting the finding of acquittal into
one of conviction. The first prayer of the applicant is of setting
aside the judgments of both the Courts and convict the
respondent for the charges levelled against him. The first
prayer made in Paragraph 7(B), thus cannot be entertained in
view of the restricted power under Section 442 (3) of the
BNSS, thus the prayer 7(B) stands rejected.
4.2 The alternative prayer is for remanding the case to the
Court of learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Porbandar for its fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The submission of learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya was
surrounded with the ground that the appreciation of the
evidence were not in accordance with the law, though direct
evidence was available, both the Courts failed to appreciate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
the evidence and had come to an erroneous conclusion by
acquitting the accused.
5. In Sheetala Prasad Vs. Sri Kant, (2010) 2 SCC 190,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the necessary
guidelines in the form of observation for exercising the
revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. Such observations
were in context of the private complaint, which was filed. The
necessary reference is made herein below:
(i) Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High
Court at the instance of a private complainant (1) where
the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the
prosecution wished to produce; (2) where the admissible
evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible; (3)
where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and
has still acquitted the accused; (4) where the material
evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or
the appellate court or the order is passed by considering
irrelevant evidence, and (5) where the acquittal is based
on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under
the law.
6. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised lightly
and the revisionist is required to show exceptional case,
where the interest of public justice requires interference for
the correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross
miscarriage of justice. Hence, the matter arises from the case
registered by the State. It is not a private complaint by the
present revisionist.
7. Here the facts of the case suggest that complaint was
filed by the de facto complainant before the Mahila Police
Station, which got converted into FIR being Cr.
No.11218001210011. The Trial Court has recorded deposition
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
of the witness - complainant, where she has stated about her
marriage on 17.02.2014 with the accused and thereafter
staying with parents-in-law and sister-in-law in a joint family
at Kedareshwar Porbandar. According to the complainant on
the next day of marriage mother-in-law and sister-in-law
restricted her from using mobile and also to watch T.V. and
movies and restrictions were also put on her movement and
also restrained to go out for any refreshment.
7.1 The complainant stated that because of all the
restrictions she started crying and husband had come down,
who had pacified and told her not to inform any other person
about such an incident. Thereafter, she stated that the
husband, sister-in-law and mother-in-law all together forced
her to eat 'nariyal-no-poto', which as per the evidence was
some home made preparation, made to be eaten by the victim
on the hope of giving birth of a son. Again, she had made
some reference that after one month of the marriage she was
going out with the husband, where sister-in-law, her husband
and the mother-in-law had created some issue with regard to
her purchasing of footwear (chapal) valued at Rs.80/-. At that
time, she stated that husband of sister-in-law (Nandoi) had
intervened and rebuked mother-in-law for creating ruckus in
the public place.
7.2 Thereafter, as per the complaint she had started residing
with her husband in Mumbai, where her husband was serving
as Charted Accountant and she was a home maker.
Thereafter, she got pregnant and during that period, as per
her say the level of water of her body was found to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
reduced and the Doctor had advised her to consume only
liquid food. It is alleged that when she asked such food from
the husband and when the husband had sought permission
from the mother-in-law, it was refused and on 01.04.2018, the
mother had come to their house as her baby-shower was on
05.04.2018, thereafter she was taken to her natal house.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya submitted that
thereafter the husband was called to visit the hospital along
with the wife-complainant, but he refused to come on the
pretext of advise by his mother, and thereafter on 23.06.2018
she gave birth to a daughter and because of birth of the
daughter no one came to visit the daughter and all the
communication also came to an end. As per learned advocate
Mr. Gondaliya these all facts, as stated by the complainant
itself would amount to cruelty and the learned Trial Court
Judge was required to consider this evidence of the
complainant, which was corroborated by the FIR.
8.1 Section 498A reads as under:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to
meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.
9. The necessary ingredients to prove Section 498A would
be 'cruelty'. In the case of Shardaben, Daughter of
Ishwarlal Bhogilal & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, dated
15.07.2025, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.2608 of 2005, it
has been observed as under:-
"24.8 To prove the charge of Section 498A of IPC,
the prosecution has to establish that the husband
or his relative subjected such woman to cruelty.
The term 'cruelty' is explained in two parts of
Section 498A. The first part speaks of wilful
conduct of a nature that is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to the life, limb or health, either physical
or mental of such woman.
24.9 The second part of Section 498A of IPC
provides for harassment of a woman with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet
unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security on account of these failure or any person
related to her to meet such demand.
24.10 Section 498A of IPC does not attract every
harassment or every type of cruelty. The
prosecution has to establish that the beating and
harassment of the deceased were with a view to
force her to commit suicide or to fulfill the illegal
demand of dowry.'
10. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality or
much so any irregularity in the assessment of the evidence of
both the Courts below. The prosecution witness as a de facto
complainant has failed to prove any 'cruelty' as defined in the
explanation of Section 498A of the IPC. The analysis of the
evidence has been consistent in accordance to the provisions
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/656/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
of law by both the Courts. Nothing has been shown on record
that the Trial Court has not allowed the complainant to
adduce her evidence or has wrongly shut down or brushed
aside any evidence, which came to be recorded or had
overlooked any material evidence on record. There is no
evidence of the complainant herself that she had narrated all
the alleged incident to her brother. In spite of that fact, the
brother was examined, therefore the conclusion reached by
the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court of considering
the brother as a hear say witness, could not be considered as
illegal or exaggerated.
11. In view of provisions of the law and when Section 442 of
the BNSS provide only limited scope for the power to be
exercised by the High Court, this Court does not find any
material to entertain the present revision application. Hence,
the present Revision Application stands rejected.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/19
