Gujarat High Court
Harijan Shankarbhai Dahyabhai Dalit vs State Of Gujarat on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8928/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 8928 of 2016
==========================================================
HARIJAN SHANKARBHAI DAHYABHAI DALIT & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS NEHA C SHUKLA(6172) 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 application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside private complaint filed by respondent No.2 before the learned JMFC, Deesa which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1421 of 2016 and all consequential orders passed thereunder.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Gondaliya for the petitioners, learned advocate Ms. Shukla for respondent no.2 and learned APP for respondent no.1.
3. Issuance of process under section 498(A) and 323 of IPC passed in private complaint No.1421 of 2016 is challenged by way of present petition. Noticeably, one of the accused i.e. accused no.5 is son of the complainant and against him also allegations under section 498(A) is alleged. Genesis of FIR is Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 07:32:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8928/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined judgment and order passed in MACP No.4155 of 2009 (Old No.200 of 2009). Husband of the complainant - Pravinbhai died in road accident. The claim petition was preferred under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act before the learned Tribunal concerned and ultimately, at the end of the trial, learned MACT passed judgment and directed opponents of the claim petition to pay amount of Rs.10,89,000/- to the petitioners, wherein, complainant was one of the petitioners. Apportionment was made to equal share from the awarded amount for the petitioners of claim petition. 30% of the amount was paid in cash and 70% was kept in Fixed Deposit jointly in the name of the petitioners of the claim petition.
4. In complaint, it is alleged that complainant was intending to pre-mature withdrawal of Fixed Deposit made pursuant to order passed by learned Tribunal for the purpose to start business for her son - Ashok and Anil. However, according to complaint, her in laws were started using filthy language and tried to put the complainant out of home and was assaulted.
5. Looking to the factual aspects on record, whereby, husband of the complaint had expired, she intend to take away amount of compensation invested in Fixed Deposit. It appears that entire incident is got up and does not fall within definition of cruelty and harassment under section 498(A) of IPC. Be that as it may. Plain reading of allegations levelled in the complaint, does not fall within the scope and ambit of cruelty and harassment defined in section 498(A) of IPC.
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 07:32:32 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/8928/2016 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined
6. So far as impugned order of learned Trial Court is concerned, it is cryptic. It does not discuss any material available with learned Trial Court to issue process under section 498(A) and 323 of IPC. Issuance of process is serious matter and the Court cannot take casual approach in issuing process. It was required to discuss material available with it but the order impugned indicates three line order issuing process for offence under section 498(A) and 323 of IPC.
7. Perusing the allegations along-with order of issuing process, this Court finds that it is abuse of process of law.
8. In view of above, the petition is allowed. The Criminal Case No.1421 of 2016 pending before the learned JMFC, Deesa as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 07:32:32 IST 2025