Gujarat High Court
Avaniben Dharmeshbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 24/07/2025
Pronounced On : 06/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 24154 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
AVANIBEN DHARMESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRUTHVIRAJ Y GOHIL(13166) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. B.B. Naik, ably assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Pruthviraj Gohil, appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing for respondent No.2; and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Chintan Dave representing the respondent-State.
2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the registration of C.R.No.I-48/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506(2), 386, 380, Page 1 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined 34, 120-B, 114 of IPC registered at Mahila Police Station;
ii) that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the investigation in C.R.No.I-48/2016 registered with Mahila Police Station, during pendency of this petition;
iii) that any just and proper order may be passed.
iv) Quash and set aside the FIR bearing CR no I- 48 of 2016 registered with Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad and Chargesheet dated 06.02.2024 filed thereupon and proceedings of Criminal Case no 12878 of 2024, pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Court no 11 at Ahmedabad and all further proceedings thereto in the interest of justice, and;
v) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this Petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the proceedings of Criminal Case no 12878 of 2024 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Court no 11 Ahmedabad and all further proceedings thereto in the interest of justice."
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
3. The petitioner is the sister-in-law of the accused Dharmeshbhai Patel, who was married to the petitioner's elder sister. It is alleged that despite such relationship, the accused, by exercising force, coercion, and deceit, established physical relations with the petitioner and subsequently solemnized a second marriage with her. The accused is further alleged to have subjected both the petitioner and her elder sister to acts of physical abuse and unnatural offences, and upon resistance, they were assaulted and Page 2 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined driven out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner submitted a written complaint seeking police protection, and thereafter, multiple FIRs came to be registered against the accused under Sections 377, 498A, 506(2), 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, and 507 of the IPC, inter alia, alleging criminal intimidation, unnatural offences, forgery, and cheating, including attempts by the accused to create fraudulent financial liabilities in the name of the petitioner by misusing company assets.
3.1. Subsequently, following a purported settlement between the accused and the complainant (elder sister of the petitioner), a series of events unfolded whereby the petitioner was subjected to renewed threats and coercion from the accused and his family members, including the filing of counter-complaints. On 31.07.2016, under mounting pressure and threats of dire consequences to herself and her minor children, the petitioner was compelled to withdraw her complaints. Fearing for her safety, she relocated to her other sister's residence and reported the continued threats to Navrangpura Police Station. It is the petitioner's case that the present FIR lodged against her is a retaliatory measure designed to exert undue pressure upon her to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition.
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:-
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. B.B. Naik, appearing with Page 3 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined learned Advocate Mr. Pruthviraj Gohil for the petitioner, has assiduously drawn the attention of this Court to the peculiar factual backdrop underpinning the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2 - the original complainant - are real sisters, and, in an unusual matrimonial arrangement, both successively entered into wedlock with one Dharmeshbhai Patel. It is further submitted that the complainant has two children born from her wedlock with Dharmeshbhai Patel, namely Prem and Dyna.
4.1 The petitioner and complainant, it is submitted, resided together with Dharmeshbhai Patel under the same roof until matrimonial discord arose between them. Amidst this estrangement, one Jigarbhai Hasmukhbhai Shah admittedly a close friend and business associate of Dharmeshbhai Patel who used to frequent their residence in his capacity as a manager, assumed the role of a caretaker for both sisters after they were allegedly ousted from the matrimonial home.
4.2. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that over a considerable period, both the petitioner and the complainant resided with Mr. Jigarbhai Shah and even travelled together with him on vacations. During this interregnum, a property dispute arose between Dharmeshbhai Patel on one hand and the petitioner and the complainant on the other, wherein Mr. Shah actively extended support to the petitioner and the complainant. However, with the Page 4 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined passage of time, as the children of the complainant attained majority, she reconciled her differences with Dharmeshbhai Patel and realigned herself with him.
4.3. It is the emphatic submission of the learned Senior Advocate that multiple complaints / FIRs had been previously lodged by both the petitioner and the complainant against Dharmeshbhai Patel, wherein, on more than one occasion, the complainant had also stepped into category as witness in support of the petitioner. Significantly, the FIR under challenge came to be filed only after the complainant's reconciliation with Dharmeshbhai Patel, and thus, it is contended that the impugned FIR is nothing but a retaliatory measure--a counterblast to the proceedings initiated against Dharmeshbhai Patel, calculated with intention to exert undue pressure upon the petitioner and Jigarbhai Shah.
4.4. As regards the role attributed to the petitioner in the impugned FIR, it is submitted that, at best, she is alleged to have played the role of an abettor. The learned Senior Advocate has pointed out that in the context of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, a woman cannot, in law, be prosecuted as a principal offender for the act of rape. With respect to abetment, it is argued that the allegations, even if taken at face value, fail to disclose the necessary ingredients to attract the rigours of criminal liability under the penal provision invoked.
4.5. It is further submitted that the FIR is meticulously worded and Page 5 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined appears to be a contrived narrative, having been lodged after an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly five years. The allegations, as set out, are riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities which render them inherently unbelievable. In support of this contention, the learned Senior Advocate pointed out that, though the complainant has alleged intoxication through buttermilk and other drive prior to the incident, the panchnama conducted during investigation revealed no traces of any intoxicating substance at the premises shared by the petitioner and the accused.
4.6. Moreover, it is argued that the complainant herself claims to have remained in the company of the main accused for a substantial period following the alleged acts, without ever raising an alarm or making a disclosure--either to her children or any other person-- which conduct, it is submitted, belies the veracity of the allegations. It is further urged that only after realigning with Dharmeshbhai Patel did the complainant dramatically alter her stance and lodge the impugned FIR, thereby suggesting that the criminal proceedings are motivated by vengeance and are an abuse of the judicial process.
4.7. Argument is also canvassed that son of the complainant though had lodged a complaint, prosecutrix had not uttered words about alleged incident, which create doubt on the allegations.
4.8. In light of the above, it is vehemently contended that the Page 6 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined impugned FIR is a manifest abuse of the process of law, instituted with oblique motives, and devoid of any substantive criminality so as to warrant a trial. The learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that this Court may be pleased to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom, so as to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to secure the ends of justice.
4.9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in order to fortify the contention that the impugned FIR is nothing but a vindictive counterblast, has placed reliance upon several authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that context, learned Senior Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision rendered in Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., reported in (2017) 11 SCC 239, particularly paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof, wherein the Hon'ble Court has elucidated the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings when the FIR is ex facie retaliatory. He has further placed reliance on Vineet Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P., reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369, more specifically paragraphs 19, 38, 39, and 41, which underscore that criminal law should not be permitted to be used as a tool for vengeance or private vendetta.
4.10. In support of the submission that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay, which gravely dents its credibility, reliance has been placed on the judgment in Kishan Page 7 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined Singh (D) through L.Rs v. Gurpal Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 3624 (Paras 21 and 22), and also upon Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033 (Paras 23 to 27), as well as Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in AIR 2023 SC 2710, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR raises a presumption of embellishment and motivated prosecution.
4.11. To reinforce the proposition that this Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, is not powerless to intervene when the criminal justice system is being weaponized to settle personal scores, learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the decisions in M.N. Ojha & Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastava & Anr., (2009) 9 SCC 682; Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 706; Eicher Tractors Ltd. & Ors. v. Harihar Singh & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 763; and Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2010) 1 SCC 322. These authorities unequivocally affirm that when the criminal process is manifestly abused to harass a party, the High Court would be justified in invoking its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice.
4.12. Relying upon the aforementioned decisions, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR are wholly unsubstantiated, inherently improbable, and bereft of bona Page 8 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined fides, thus rendering the entire prosecution a classic instance of malicious prosecution, launched with the oblique motive of wreaking vengeance. He would further contend that the role attributed to the present petitioner is at best peripheral and limited to that of an alleged abettor, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, even such attribution is unsustainable in law. It is vehemently contended that even the maintainability of the FIR as against the principal accused is gravely suspect, and hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law.
4.13. In light of the above arguments, the learned Senior Advocate has earnestly urged this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the impugned FIR, in the interest of justice.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
5. Learned advocate Mr. Praveen Gondaliya, appearing on behalf of the private respondent, has placed reliance on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & Another v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2009) 11 SCC 529, with particular emphasis on paragraph 18 thereof. Drawing strength from the said judgment, learned counsel has submitted that in the facts of the present case, the investigation has culminated in the filing of a chargesheet before the competent trial court. It is Page 9 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined further submitted that one of the co-accused has already tendered an application for discharge, wherein the learned trial court is presently seized of the entire case record and is in the process of evaluating whether there exists sufficient material to frame a charge and put the accused on trial.
5.1. In such circumstances, learned advocate would contend that this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ought not to undertake a meticulous appraisal of the evidence on record, as the same would amount to conducting a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage, which is impermissible in law. He would further submit that the veracity of the allegations and the plea of false implication, as urged by the petitioner, are matters that can be more appropriately adjudicated either at the stage of considering the discharge application or during the course of the trial.
5.2. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya has urged this Court to dismiss the present petition as being devoid of merit.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Chintan Dave, while adopting the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the private respondent, has submitted that the chargesheet has been filed and the matter now stands registered before the learned Sessions Court. The concerned court has issued process against the accused persons, including the present petitioner, and is seized of Page 10 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined the proceedings in accordance with law.
6.1. It is further submitted by the learned APP that the allegations forming part of the chargesheet raise triable issues which cannot be brushed aside at the threshold. He would submit that contentions such as whether the FIR is a counterblast or whether it suffers from the vice of delay, are essentially defences which fall within the realm of factual adjudication and, therefore, do not justify invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR at threshold. In view of the above, learned APP has also prayed for dismissal of the petition.
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THE COURT:-
7. I have carefully heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and have meticulously perused the material placed on record.
7.1. At the very threshold, it would be apposite to advert to the contours and scope of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, reference may be fruitfully made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors (supra), wherein, after a comprehensive analysis of the celebrated decision in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, the legal principles governing the exercise of inherent powers have been succinctly crystallized.
Relevant paras are as under:-
Page 11 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined "7. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 sc 866] this Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (AIR para 6)
8. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt, should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of the rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) Page 12 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 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 Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 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 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.
(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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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."
7.2. In M.N. Ojha (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Page 13 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined "28. It is true that the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations and appreciate the evidence if any available on record.
Normally, the High Court would not intervene in the criminal proceedings at the preliminary stage/when the investigation/enquiry is pending.
29. Interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a clear case for such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled for interference even at the preliminary stage by the High Court may result in causing obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminal case which may not be in the public interest. But at the same time the High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of justice so required where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no fair-minded and informed observer can ever reach a just and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding. In such cases refusal to exercise the jurisdiction may equally result in injustice more particularly in cases where the Complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint."
7.3. Yet again, in a subsequent pronouncement rendered in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively reiterated the well- settled legal position delineating the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Apex Court, while emphasizing the salutary purpose underlying the said provision, observed as under:
--Page 14 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined "15. The scope of power under Section 482 CrPC has been explained in a series of decisions by this Court.
"5...In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [1976 (3) SCC 736], it was held that the Magistrate while issuing process against the accused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused. It was held that the order of Magistrate issuing process against the accused could be quashed under the following circumstances: (SCC p. 741, para 5) "(1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like."
6. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], a question came up for consideration as to whether quashing of the FIR filed against the respondent Bhajan Lal for the offences under Sections 161 and 165 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was proper and legal. Reversing the order passed by the High Court, this Court explained the circumstances under which such power could be exercised. Apart from reiterating the earlier norms laid down by this Court, it was further explained that such power could be exercised where the allegations made in the Page 15 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined 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. However, this Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [1995 (6) SCC 194] held (at SCC p. 209, para 23) that "at the stage of quashing an FIR or complaint the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein"
9. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar [1985 (2) SCC 370], the question arose that when the civil as well as the criminal remedy is available to a party, can a criminal prosecution be completely barred. In this case, the matter related to the stridhan property. The complainant alleged that her husband, father-in-law and other relatives misappropriated her jewellery and other valuable articles entrusted to them by her parents at the time of marriage. The complainant alleged that these dowry articles were meant for her exclusive use and that the accused misbehaved and maltreated her and ultimately he turned her out without returning the dowry articles. The accused filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 for quashing the criminal proceedings and the High Court quashed the same. The accused contended that the dispute was of a civil nature and no criminal prosecution would lie. Under that circumstance, this Court held in para 21 at pp. 382-83 as under:
"21. There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution Page 16 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import."
16. This Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [2006 (6) SCC 736], at page 747 has observed as under :
"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few --Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque.. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
Page 17 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." The appellant has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar [2005 (10) SCC 336], at page 338, wherein this Court has observed as follows :
"7. In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 CrPC which it has erroneously refused."
In the abovementioned case, this Court has taken the view that when the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed under Section Page 18 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined 482 CrPC. However, the same is not the situation in the present case. There is no denial of the fact that though 900 bales of cotton was already dispatched, but 100 bales of cotton are yet to be dispatched. The defence raised by the appellant hereinabove can be urged and proved only during the course of trial.
18. While entertaining a petition under Section 482 CrPC, the materials furnished by the defence cannot be looked into and the defence materials can be entertained only at the time of trial. It is well settled position of law that when there are prima facie materials available, a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be entertained. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre- emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases."
7.4. It is well settled by a consistent line of judicial pronouncements that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not to be exercised in a routine or casual manner, particularly to embark upon an inquiry into the veracity or otherwise of the allegations levelled in the First Information Report or to meticulously scrutinize the evidence, if any, collected during investigation. The settled legal proposition is that at the incipient stage of criminal proceedings--especially when investigation is either pending or has just culminated--the High Court ought to refrain from interdicting the process unless there is a palpable case of abuse of process or a grave miscarriage of justice. The power is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, where refusal to Page 19 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined intervene would result in manifest injustice.
7.5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal framework, and upon a comprehensive consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court notes that the principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned FIR is a retaliatory measure--a counterblast-- emanating from the pendency of four criminal cases instituted against one Dharmeshbhai Patel, in some of which the complainant is cited as a prosecution witness. It has been strenuously urged that the FIR is a calculated attempt to suborn the petitioner into turning hostile or withdrawing support to the prosecution.
7.6. It is, however, significant to note that the FIR in question has been registered against two individuals, and Dharmeshbhai Patel is conspicuously not named as directly involved. The FIR narrates various incidents, and the complainant has categorically alleged that she was subjected to sexual assault by the principal accused, aided and abetted by the present petitioner. The allegations, as narrated, pertain to specific instances and phases during which the complainant was allegedly intoxicated and sexually assaulted under coercion and threats of further harm--including threats of similar assault on her minor daughter. It is further alleged that the petitioner facilitated the main accused by capturing compromising photographs and using them to intimidate the complainant with threats of public exposure.
Page 20 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined 7.7. Since quashing implore is made at threshold of filing FIR, it would be wholly impermissible for this Court to embark upon an adjudication of the truthfulness of the allegations or to evaluate the defence that the FIR is lodged with an oblique motive. The fact that the complainant is a witness in the pending cases against Dharmesh bhai Patel may indeed be one of the several facets to be tested during trial. The plea that the FIR has been filed by way of vendetta, although vehemently urged, does not, in the considered view of this Court, constitute sufficient justification for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. The element of delay in lodging the FIR, whether explained or otherwise, is also a matter best left for trial, where it can be evaluated in the light of evidence and overall circumstances.
7.8. The chequered factual matrix of the present case, as it prima facie emerges from the record, reveals that both the complainant and the petitioner--who are real sisters--were married to the said Dharmeshbhai Patel. Subsequently, both are stated to have either left, or been compelled to leave, their matrimonial home, and came to reside with the main accused. A bare perusal of the FIR-- particularly paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 discloses allegations as prima facie that are neither vague nor bald, but specific and grave in nature. While the veracity of such allegations shall undoubtedly be tested at the appropriate stage, it cannot be said that the FIR is bereft of foundational facts warranting investigation or trial.
Page 21 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined 7.9. It further emerges from the proceedings that vide order dated 05.01.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vacated the interim protection earlier granted and permitted the Investigating Officer to file an appropriate report before the learned trial Court. Consequent thereto, the police have submitted a final report / chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC. Later on, after committal proceedings, Sessions Case No. 901 of 2025 is registered and is now tagged with Sessions Case No. 46 of 2020, a chargesheet against the principal accused. By order dated 17.05.2025, this Court called for a progress report in Sessions Case Nos. 46 of 2020 and 901 of 2025. In compliance, the learned Sessions Court submitted a report dated 03.07.2025, confirming that both the aforementioned sessions cases arise from the self-same FIR.
7.10. It is trite that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is plenary in nature and is intended to advance the cause of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of law. However, where the investigation stands concluded and the competent court is already seized of the matter upon the filing of the chargesheet, judicial discipline demands that the trial court be permitted to proceed in accordance with law, unless exceptional circumstances warrant intervention.
7.11. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the principal accused has already preferred an application for discharge under Exhibit 55 in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2020. In the Page 22 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner too may avail the statutory remedy by filing an application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC before the learned Sessions Court.
7.12. For aforesaid proposition worth assistance can be taken from recent Supreme Court ruling in case of Iqbal Alias Bala and Ors. v. State of U.P. reported in (2023) 8 SCC 734. Relevant para is as under:-
"7. It is relevant to note that the victim has not furnished any information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the alleged offence. At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, yet we are of the view that the appellants should prefer discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and charge- sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge-sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any case for discharge is made out or not."
ORDER:-
8. In light of the foregoing discussion, the present petition stands disposed of with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the learned trial Court by preferring an appropriate Page 23 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/24154/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined application under Section 227 of the CrPC. It is made abundantly clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the allegations or expressed any opinion on the truth or falsity thereof. All observations made hereinabove are purely for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present petition and shall not, in any manner, influence the trial Court while adjudicating the discharge application, which shall be decided independently, strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law.
9. The decisions cited by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, though duly considered, are distinguishable on facts and do not render any tangible assistance to the petitioner's case in the present context.
10. Rule/Notice, if issued, stands discharged. No order as to costs.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 24 of 24 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:54:48 IST 2025