Gujarat High Court
Kundan Narendra Padia vs State Of Gujarat on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3652 of 2020
==========================================================
KUNDAN NARENDRA PADIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
S D MANSURI(7509) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BHAKTI M JOSHI(3820) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the FIR being C.R.No.I - 25 of 2019 registered with Mahila Police Station, Surat against the petitioner for the offences punishable under the sections 498(A), 323, 504, 114 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act qua the petitioner.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mansuri for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms.Joshi for respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr.Joshi for respondent - State.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is mother in law of the complainant. Taking to the FIR learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that general allegations are made against the petitioner and no such Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined ingredients of the alleged offence is attracted if the FIR is read at its face value. It is submitted that allegations made against the petitioner is false and frivolous. It is further submitted that there is delay in filing FIR. It is submitted that allegations are made against the petitioner without any evidence on record. It is submitted that petitioner and her family members have treated the first informant as her daughter and had celebrated expected arrival of baby girl by hosting baby shower. It is submitted that respondent no.2 and husband entered into separation agreement for dissolution of marriage and it was reduced in writing by way of contract, wherein, it was decided that applicant will pay $ 500 (Rs.34,4000/- appx.) per month to respondent no.2 apart from one time payment of Rs.7 lakhs.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Mansuri for the petitioner further submitted that after receiving alimony every month, first informant stated that said contract was executed forcefully. It is submitted that upon return to USA in December, 2018, the first informant started quarrel with her husband and threatened him that she will fly back to India with baby girl and will not see her daughter. It is submitted that at no point of time, respondent no.2 was subjected to any cruelty by petitioner who is mother. It is also submitted that petitioner never demanded any dowry from respondent no.2.
3.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that if the FIR is read as it is no such ingredients of the alleged offence is found prima facie to have been attracted qua the petitioner and therefore by making above submissions, he would submit to allow this petition and to quash the FIR. In support of his Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined submission, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Patel Chetankumar Bharatkumar v/s. State of Gujarat [2025 (0) AIJEL-HC 250078].
4. Learned advocate Ms.Joshi for the respondent no.2 submits that petitioner who is mother in law of complainant since beginning used to harass the complainant to bring dowry and was subjected to cruelty. It is submitted that there is no settlement between the parties. It is submitted that false statement was made that consensual divorce was in process before this Court and on such statement, this Hon'ble Court has protected the petitioner at the admission stage of petition. It is also submitted that petitioner was inciting husband of the complainant and therefore, let trial to conduct against the petitioner to test veracity of the allegations. It is submitted that divorce deed was executed between the parties (Annexure D) and as per divorce deed, the husband of the complainant was required to transfer amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to complainant as deposit till girl baby attained age of majority and every month 500$ as also to be deposited / transferred as maintenance amount of minor child. It is submitted that no maintenance amount is paid to respondent no.2 till date. It is also submitted that petitioner is residing in foreign country without valid documents and her passport is also impounded. Therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned APP for the respondent State submitted that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that as per FIR, complainant was harassed physically and mentally Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined for dowry. It is submitted that petitioner being mother in law used to instigate and provoke husband. It is submitted that complainant was consistently harassed after marriage. It is submitted that truthfulness of allegations cannot be examined at this stage. It is submitted that all the contentions raised by the petitioner can be examined by the competent Court when trial is conduced. In addition this submissions, it is submitted that petitioner has violated bail conditions instead of depositing passport with Trial Court, petitioner breached bail condition and flew to foreign country and she is staying on invalid documents. It is also submitted that passport of the petitioner is impounded. It is also submitted that petitioner is not co-operating in investigation. It is submitted that section 70 of Cr.P.C warrant has been issued against the petitioner. Lookout notice is also issued against the petitioner which indicates that petitioner is not co-operating in investigation and therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused material on record, the question arise whether FIR against petitioner is required to be quashed or not. On perusal of evidence on record, it appears that petitioner herein is mother in law of complainant. In the instant case, allegations in the FIR are under section 498A of IPC and under provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. On perusal of FIR, it would indicate that petitioner alleged to have demanded dowry and thereby caused mental and physical trauma to the complainant and she was subjected to Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined cruelty. Complainant started to reside with mother in law and husband at America. After wedlock, she gave birth to girl child. Petitioner who is mother in law used to pick up quarrel with complainant. The complainant was continually harassed by petitioner from the date of marriage. This picture of harassment and cruelty prima facie emerge on plain reading of FIR. Prima facie, it appears that complainant has made case against the petitioner. Normally, the Court quashes FIR against in laws, since FIR filed against them with oblique purpose to pressurize but in the case on hand, the petitioner and her son - husband of complainant having joined hand, extended cruelty and harassment upon the complainant.
8. All the contentions raised by the petitioner can be examined by the competent Court when trial is conduced. This Court in inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code cannot appreciate them by holding mini trial.
9. In the case of Neeharika Infrastrure Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of Mahabharata [2021 SCC Online 315], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that quashing of FIR is an exception rathar than an ordianry rule and the High Court should exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. sparingly with circumspection.
10. In Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the position of law for quashing the FIR as under:-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre- empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."
15. The aforesaid parameters indicates that the FIR can be quashed in a situation where criminal complaint has been filed with mala fide or the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process or no prima facie offence is made out or the complaint contains vague allegations. Learned advocate for the petitioner, however, failed to establish any such parameters touched to the case on hand.
16. The truthfulness and/or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643. It was observed:-
"13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at their face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra)."
17. Simultaneously, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, the Court cannot hold mini trial and appreciate the evidence. [See: Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392 as well as in case of CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399]. The relevant para from the judgment reads as under:-
"17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7)
6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. ...
7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider 'whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not'."
18. It is also to be noted that there was divorce deed which is produced at Annexure D it is dated 15.12.2017. As per said deed, it was decided that husband of the complainant would transfer an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as deposit till baby girl attains age of majority and every month, husband was supposed to transfer $ 500 as maintenance towards minor child. No amount of maintenance was paid to the complainant. It is to be noted that complainant is destitute lady and presumed to be in pecuniary. Petitioner and her son has left the complainant in void, as such complainant is not only facing financial vagrancy but also cruelty and harassment. She having no source of income has to upkeep daughter also. As on date, it is submitted that more than Rs.50 lakhs is outstanding towards maintenance.
19. One more aspect to be noted in the case on hand is that that the petitioner is evading process. The petitioner is running out of hand of law. She is not co-operating. Section 70 warrant against the petitioner is issued. That Lookout notice is also issued against the petitioner. It is to be mentioned that the Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined petitioner has not challenged issuance of warrant under section 70 of Cr.P.C. or lookout notice. At this state, I may refer to judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sumer Singh Salkan v/s. Asstt. Director [ 2010 (6) ILR (Del) 706]. Relevant para 11 of the said judgment reads as under :-
"11. Look-out-Circular has also been issued against the petitioner as the petitioner is an accused before the Court of M.M. and he has not appeared before the Court of M.M. If the petitioner gives an undertaking before the court for his appearance on a particular date, through his counsel, the Lookout-Circular issued against the petitioner shall be withdrawn within 24 hours of giving undertaking by the petitioner. The questions raised in the reference are as under:
"A. What are the categories of cases in which the investigating agency can seek recourse of Lookout-Circular and under what circumstances?
B. What procedure is required to be followed by the investigating agency before opening a Lookout-circular?
C. What is the remedy available to the person against whom such Look-out-Circular has been opened?
D. What is the role of the concerned Court when such a case is brought before it and under what circumstances, the subordinate courts can intervene?
The questions are answered as under:
A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.
B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.
C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.
D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts' jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs."
20. As stated herein-above, the petitioner has neither challenged warrant under section 70 or Lookout notice, which suffice to say that the petitioner is evading arrest and even in these circumstances, FIR qua the petitioner cannot be quashed.
21. Apt to note, petitioner was released on conditional bail, one of the condition is to deposit her passport. However, breaching the condition of bail, the petitioner flew to USA. When the issue was confronted to learned advocate Mr.Mansuri for the petitioner, he was not in position to reply. Thus, conduct of the petitioner also makes out that she is not entitled to get discretionary relief.
22. The judgment relied by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Patel Chetankumar Bharatkumar (supra) is not helpful to the petitioner in the facts of present Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3652/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined case.
23. For the reasons stated herein-above, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 03:17:15 IST 2025