Gujarat High Court
Sureshbhai Ambarambhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 18686 of 2021
==========================================================
SURESHBHAI AMBARAMBHAI ZARMARIYA(Does not press as per Hobn'ble
Courts order dt.25/10/2021) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.B. Gateshaniya for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C."), the petitioners seek to quash the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 11211001210007 of 2021 registered at Surendranagar Mahila Police Station, Dist. Surendranagar for offences punishable under Sections Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
BRIEF FACTS:-
3. The present application is filed for quashing of the FIR being C.R. No. 11211001210007 of 2021 registered at Surendranagar Mahila Police Station, Dist. Surendranagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The marriage between Applicant No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnized on 05.02.2013 as per community customs. Applicant No.1 is employed with Saurashtra Gramin Bank and had, from his own income, purchased a residential property at Ratanpar, District Surendranagar, jointly in his and Respondent No.2's name by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.06.2017.
3.1. The impugned FIR has been filed by Respondent No.2 with false, frivolous, and vague allegations, which are general in nature and do not disclose any specific role or overt act attributable to any of the applicants. The complaint appears to be a misuse of the criminal justice system, lodged with an intent to harass and pressurize the applicants. No incident of dowry demand, abuse, or Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined threats as alleged has ever occurred. The FIR, therefore, amounts to nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:-
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that a plain reading of the FIR, as well as the draft chargesheet placed on record by the learned APP, reveals and demonstrates that no specific role, incident, date, time, or place has been mentioned to constitute an offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 4 of the Prohibition Act. He further submitted that the primary allegations in the FIR relate to an offence under Section 498A IPC. He contended that the allegations of marital discord are based on vague, general, and specious assertions, and as such, they do not substantiate the charges. Given these aspects, the petitioners, who are the in-laws and maternal brother-in-law of the first informant, should not be subjected to trial. 4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioners referred to Annexure B and submitted that if the husband, in-laws, or brother-in-law had indeed demanded dowry from the first informant or her relatives, the sale deed in favour of Chandrikaben (the first informant) Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined concerning immovable property would not have been executed. He further submitted that Sureshbhai Ambarambhai Zarmariya, the husband, and the first informant purchased non-agricultural land identified as Plot No. 19 in Revenue Survey No. 133 in the year 2017, with construction thereon. In other words, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the husband had purchased a residential property in the joint names of both the husband and wife, with the intention of residing therein. Thus, he argued, demonstrates that the first informant's complaint is false, as no cruelty or harassment, as alleged under Section 498A IPC, has taken place. He further submitted that a plain reading of the FIR does not substantiate the commission of offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC.
4.2. Lastly, learned advocate for the petitioners prayed to allow this petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
5. Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh, appearing for the first informant, while opposing the relief sought by the petitioners, submitted that the relationship between the husband and wife deteriorated after petitioner No.3 - Shaykumar Kartikbhai Bavaliya interfered in their matrimonial affairs. It was further submitted that Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined the petitioners were actively instigating the husband of the first informant, which led to a breakdown of the relationship between the parties. These allegations, it was argued, prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and other allied provisions. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5.1. Supporting the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Soaham Joshi submitted that the investigation in the matter has been completed. Petitioner No.1, who has not pressed the petition, is already facing trial, which is at an advanced stage. He further submitted that the draft chargesheet reveals the presence of sufficient material evidence in support of the prosecution's case. Under the circumstances, learned APP urged that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and have also perused the record, including the draft chargesheet tendered by the learned APP. In order to appreciate the precise nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and to understand the context of the dispute between the parties, it is Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the FIR, which read as under:
"On 20/07/2021, I submitted a typed application to the Mahila Police Station, Surendrangar. The reason of submitting this application is that: my marriage was solemnized at my father's home at Samdhiyala village on 05/02/2013 with Sureshbhai Ambaram Zarmariya, Koli by caste, R/o Pithad, Tehsil: Jodiya, Dist:
Jamangar; native of Ramdevgadh village, Tehsil: Chuda by following the customs and traditions of my community and in presence of the relatives; and I went to my matrimonial home with all the gifts, clothes, gold-silver jewelry, and household goods and furniture, etc. My husband is one of two brothers and a sister. The eldest of them, my brother-in-law, is Ajitbhai Ambarambhai, R/o Ramdevgadh, Tehsil: Chuda; a sister-in-law younger to him, Bhartiben, who is married at Bavla, Dist: Ahmedabad; and the youngest one is my husband. My father-in-law, Ambarambhai Chaturbhai Zarmariya, passed away 31 years ago, and my husband's maternal uncle, Kartikbhai, R/o Morvad, Tehsil: Chuda raised my husband, Sureshbhai, from childhood at his home, bearing the expenses. As my husband, Sureshbhai, was working with Saurashtra Gramin Bank at Pithad, I was residing at Pithad with my husband and mother- in-law, Labhuben. Skykumar, son of my husband's maternal uncle used to visit our home frequently and stayed with us for approximately three-four months. I was treated well for the first two months of my marriage. Thereafter, my mother-in-law started taunting me for trivial household chores by saying that my parents did not teach me anything, I did not know cooking, I was unlucky and brought misfortune; and when I would go to the market for shopping, my mother-in-law would question my character by asking with whom I went out, and often used to torture me physically and mentally. She also would provoke husband, and my husband would tell me that he did not like me. I tolerated everything in silence, hoping that it would all eventually settle. When I informed my parents about the torture, they told me that they would make the son-in-law understand. They made my husband understand, hoping it would settle everything. Subsequent to my husband's transfer from Pithad, Tehsil: Jodiya to Latipur, Tehsil: Dhrol, I, along Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined with my husband and mother-in-law, was residing at Latipur. My brother-in-law, Skykumar Kartikbhai Bavliya, used to visit our home frequently and stayed with us for about a month. He would provoke my husband and mother-in-law against me, and they would torture me. Meanwhile, I gave birth to a son. His name is Mahir, and he is 7 years old now. My mother-in-law and husband were torturing me. When my husband was transferred from Latipur village to Chuda, I resided at Limbadi for some time, and then I, along with my husband and mother-in-law, moved to Avdheshwar Township, Opp. Akshar Academy School, Ratanpar, Tehsil: Wadhwan. My brother-in-law, Skykumar Kartikbhai Bavaliya, was also residing with us. Shitalben was residing with her family in our neighborhood. My husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, Skykumar, in collusion with one another, often quarreled with me over trivial matters. My husband, Sureshbhai, used to assault me with fists and kicks, and utter abusive words to me. In response to the quarrel, Shitalben would pacify the situation. My husband and mother-in-law would demand for rupees twenty thousand, a golden set, and earrings as dowry. As my brother-in-law, Skykumar, was employed at the Rajkot Court, he stayed at our home for about a year and would commute back and forth. Meanwhile, Skykumar wedded to Vilasben, the daughter of my maternal uncle, Shankarbhai Ghughabhai Memkiya, R/ o Kotda, Tehsil: Chuda. The couple would stay with us at our home. My brother-in-law, Skykumar, would provoke my husband. In a period of about a year, my husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law, Skykumar, often quarreled with me. When my father, and a relative, Manubhai Jethubhai Gohil, R/o Samdhiyala came to my home for making my matrimonial family understand, my husband, Sureshbhai, became infuriated, and started uttering abusive words to me and slapped me on the cheek. The couple, Skykumar and Vilasben, stayed with us for approximately one and a half year. Being fed up with the quarrels in home, Skykumar and Vilasben, shifted to Morvad, and then to Rajkot. Upon my husband's transfer from Chuda and then from Saurashtra Gramin Bank, Joravarnagar to Pithad after approximately five and a quarter years, he has been working for approximately nine months. I, along with my son, Mahir, and my mother-in-law, Labhuben, was staying at Ratanpar. When my husband took my son, Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Mahir, to pithad, my son, Mahir, was residing with Skykumar Kartikbhai Bavaliya, presently residing at CLF Quarters, Jamnagar Road, Rajkot. Therefore, after about three months, I, along with Arvindbhai Dhanjibhai Vanani and Pradipbhai Somabhai Vanani, both R/o Fulgram, went to Rajkot, and informed my brother-in-law, Skykumar, at noon in their presence about taking my son, Mahir, with us, my brother-in- law, Skykumar, was provoked and started quarreling with us. He informed us that he worked at the Court and had good connection at the High Court too. He also threatened us to take our lives if we attempted to take my son, Mahir, with us. My son, Mahir, was present there, but they did not hand him over to us. We returned to our home at last. Ealier too, I came to my maternal home in anger twice after being fed up of torture from my husband, mother-in-law, and brother- in-law, Skykumar. Among these, at one instance, when my husband, Sureshbhai, came to my home at Samadhiyala, he uttered abusive words to me in presence of my parents. At this time, Nathiben, W/o Somabhai Vitthalbhai Vanani, R/o Fulgram, Tehsil: Wadhwan helped in reaching settlement and sent me at my matrimonial home. Presently, I have been residing at my father's home in anger after being fed up from the physical and mental torture of my husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law, Skykumar. I have a son, Mahir, aged approximately 7 years, who lives with my husband. I have not taken treatment at any hospital after being beaten up by my husband with fists and kicks. My in-laws tortured me physically as well as mentally, and as they have been in talks with my relative, Dineshbhai Lalani, R/o Ranagadh, Tehsil: Limbadi, presently residing at Doliya, my parents and elderly about taking me with them, I have not registered a complaint. As my husband has not taken my care till date, I hereby register this complaint."
6.1. A bare perusal of the FIR and the draft chargesheet filed pursuant thereto reveals that no specific or direct allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. The allegations pertaining to cruelty and harassment are vague, general, and specious in nature. Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined Prima facie, it appears that the FIR has been lodged as part of an attempt to involve the relatives of the husband in a matrimonial discord without substantiating their individual roles. 6.2. In order to attract the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to establish, even at a preliminary stage, that the husband or his relatives subjected the wife to cruelty through wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or physical or mental health. 6.3. The explanation to Section 498A defines "harassment" as a form of coercion with the intent to compel the woman or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or harassment caused on account of failure to meet such demand. Therefore, the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC include:
a). Wilful conduct by the husband or his relatives of such intensity that it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave harm or danger to her life or health (physical or mental), and Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
b). Harassment with a view to coercing the woman or her relatives into fulfilling an unlawful demand.
6.4. In the present case, even if the contents of the FIR are taken at face value and accepted as gospel truth, the allegations fail to satisfy the essential ingredients required to make out an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
6.5. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh - 2012 (10) SCC 741, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :-
"20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao V/ s. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.
*** *** ***
25. In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings against them, inter-alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections 498A,/323/504/506 including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court seems to have overlooked all the pleas that were raised and rejected the petition on the solitary ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants to approach the trial court."
6.6. Observing a few laments here, which are part of everyday life, the happiness of the family is often overlooked. The Apex Court, in the case of Kamal & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 504, observed as under:-
"12. Even if we assume that there are some allegations Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined of assault and of physical and mental torture of the complainant, but they are against the husband. As against the parents in law, the allegations are only of extending taunts and of not parting with the money for managing household expenses. Specific details in respect of those taunts have not been disclosed. Moreover, a few taunts here and there is a part of everyday life which for happiness of the family are usually ignored. Interestingly, as per own allegations in the FIR, the complainant admits that when she reported those issues to her parents and uncle, she was counselled to bear patience. In the circumstances, in our considered view, no case to proceed against the parents in law, namely, the second and third appellant is made out. In so far as the first appellant is concerned, there are allegations of physical and mental torture of the complainant at his behest. Consequently, the case may proceed qua the first appellant.
13. Before parting, we would like to observe that the High adopted an extremely pedantic approach while dealing with the quashing petition of the appellants. No doubt, in ordinary course, while exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court is not required to test the correctness of the allegations, but in matters arising from matrimonial disputes, particularly where the allegations are levelled after many years of marriage and, that too, after one party initiates divorce proceeding against the other, the Court must be circumspect in taking the allegations at their face value. Rather, it must examine, where allegations of mala fides are there, whether those allegations have been levelled with an oblique purpose. More so, while considering the prayer of the relatives of the husband."
6.7. Applying the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgment to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC or even the complicity of the petitioners in aiding or abetting the commission of such offence. It appears that Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined the wife has implicated the petitioners in an attempt to vent her grievance and to rope in as many relatives of the husband as possible. In such circumstances, the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6.8. Insofar as the alleged offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC are concerned, there is no specific or substantive allegation in the FIR or the draft chargesheet which can be attributed to the petitioners. It is not the case of the first informant that she sustained any injury due to a specific act by the petitioners, or that she was intentionally insulted with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or that any criminal intimidation was extended to her causing alarm to her safety or life. Thus, the essential ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC are also prima facie not made out against the petitioners. 6.9. In the case of Mahmood Ali v/s. State of UP [(2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles applicable apropos section 482 of Cr.P.C., observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
6.10. Ordinarily, the Court should not scuttle the FIR on its face. The inherent extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court to scuttle the FIR at the threshold should be exercised sparingly. It is apt to refer decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335). Relevant Pars is as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. 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 Art. 226 or the inherent powers under sec. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give 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.Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined (1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec. 155(2) of the Code.
(3) 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.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under sec.
155(2) of the Code.
(5) 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. (6) 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. (7) 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."
ORDER:-
Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/18686/2021 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2025 undefined
7. In view of the above, the present petition deserves to be allowed, and it is accordingly allowed. The FIR, being C.R. No. 11211001210007 of 2021 registered at Surendranagar Mahila Police Station, Dist. Surendranagar, along with all subsequent proceedings arising from it, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein.
7.1. It is pertinent to note that, insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, the present petition was already disposed of as not pressed vide order dated 25.10.2021. Accordingly, the trial against petitioner No.1 shall proceed uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 07:42:33 IST 2025