R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET

ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 12198 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

√

================================================

GAURANGBHAI SURESHBHAI KAPARIYA (HUSBAND) &

ORS.

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

================================================

Appearance:

MR MK POOJARA for MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the

Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5

MR VINOD M GAMARA(5910) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR KM ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 01/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 (the Code) is filed by the applicants praying to quash

and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-106 of 2017 dated 25.04.2017,

Page 1 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

registered with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City, District: Rajkot

City for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 and

114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.Facts in nutshell of the prosecution case are that marriage of

the de facto complainant with applicant No. 1 herein came to be

solemnized on 15.05.2011 and they resided in a joint family

comprising her parents-in-law, brother-in-law as well as the uncle-

in-law. It is alleged that when the de facto complainant got

pregnant, her mother-in-law did not given her complete food to

eat and the applicant No. 1 did only to the extent what his father

told him. Her brother-in-law also used to ask not to stay in their

house and thus, all were quarreling with her and hence, the de facto

complainant along with applicant No. 1 went Bombay and started

residing over there, where, the applicant No. 1 initially behaved

properly, however, thereafter, started quarreling and behaved in a

bad manner. The de facto complainant then gave birth to a child to

whom, on 27.10.2014, the applicant No. 1 brought with him at

Rajkot without informing to the de facto complainant. Hence, the

de facto complainant went to Rajkot along with her parents

however, the applicants did not allow them to enter into the house

and threatened to beat if she would enter. Hence, the de facto

complainant, with the help of the Police, got custody of their child.

It is further alleged that despite several demands were made, the

applicants did not return the de facto complainant her Stridhan.

Page 2 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

Further, though the applicant No. 1 was informed about

hospitalization of their son, he did not turn up and the applicants

asked that they have no relations with them. Thus, on the said

facts, FIR in question came to be registered against the applicants.

3.Heard, learned advocate for the respective parties.

3.1The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that

the FIR filed by the respondent No. 2 is nothing but an abuse of

process of law inasmuch as, the alleged period of offence is

between 2011 and 2014 and the FIR is filed on 25.04.2017 that too,

by suppressing material facts and deliberately and conveniently

not referring the proceedings viz. divorce petition being Family

Suit No. 147 of 2016 filed by the applicant No. 1 before the Family

Court at Rajkot on 11.05.2016.

3.2The learned advocate for the applicants would further

submit that in the said proceedings, summons was issued and the

de facto complainant appeared through her Advocate and filed

Reply also on 08.08.2016. It is submitted that even an application

for maintenance was also preferred by the de facto complainant on

the very same day, whereas, the present FIR is dated 25.04.2017

arraigning the present applicant No. 1 i.e. the husband as well as

the other family members including the uncle of the applicant No.

1 who is aged about 67 and blind from birth.

Page 3 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

3.3It is further submitted that while the de facto complainant

alleges harassment and cruelty, it is other way round inasmuch as,

if the findings of the Family Court in the Judgment and Decree

dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in the

said Family Suit No. 147 of 2016 are referred, copy of which is

made available by the learned advocate for the applicants and is

taken on record, it is specifically observed therein that the

applicant No. 1 – husband was treated with cruelty by the wife - de

facto complainant.

3.4The learned advocate for the applicants would further

submit that the applicant No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 - de facto

complainant stayed together at Bombay, however, the applicant

No. 1, in fact, was put to under tremendous pressure and

harassment and was compelled to leave Bombay with his minor

son. It is submitted that an Intimation to that effect was also given

at Virar Police Station on 06.05.2014 and thereafter, a Statement of

the applicant No. 1 was also recorded on 15.11.2024 by the police.

Thus, it is submitted that only with a view to harass and

pressurize the applicant No. 1 and his family members after a long

lapse of time, present criminal proceedings are initiated against the

applicants.

3.5The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that so far

as applicant No. 4 – Jalpesh Sureshbhai Kapariya, who is the

brother-in-law of the de facto complainant, is concerned, he being a

Page 4 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

student of MBBS was residing separately from his family members

since 2006 as was studying in Pramukh Swami Medical College

situated at Karamsad. He also did internship at a Hiren Patel

Center for Medical Course and Education and a certificate to that

effect is also issued on 03.04.2013. He also got a certificate from

Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidhyanagar. Further, he took

admission at Madurai Medical College, Tamilnadu and a

completed his course in Diploma in Anesthesia and also got a

certificate. He was then offered job at Department of Cardiac

Anesthesia at BGS Global Hospital at Bangalore and did private

job for some time also and presently, doing study at Noble

Hospital, Pune. It is thus submitted that present FIR is nothing but

a tactic to harass the pressurize the applicants.

3.6 It is submitted that on the contrary, the de facto complainant

suppressed the fact that while she was residing with the

applicants, she was allowed to undergo further studies, she took

admission in the Saurashtra University for the Post Graduate

Diploma in Hospital Management and she was also allowed to

start her Clinic as a Consulting Homeopath at the residence of the

applicants.

3.7It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the

applicants that so far as Stridhan is concerned, the de facto

complainant had already taken with her the jewellery, which could

be evidence from the proceedings in Family Suit No. 147 of 2016,

Page 5 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

more particularly, from the documents Exhs. 65, 66 and 67

produced therein.

3.8Making above submissions, it is requested to allow this

application.

4.As against that, the learned advocate for the de facto

complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondent – State would submit that a prima facie case is made out

against the present applicants from the bare reading of the FIR

itself and accordingly, exercise of discretion under Section 482 of

the Code is not warranted and accordingly, it is urged to reject this

application summarily.

4.1It is submitted that the applicants are headstrong persons

and that, specific allegations are levelled in the FIR against them

with regard to continuous harassment and torture meted out to the

respondent No. 2 and in the circumstances, no case is made out for

interference.

4.2The learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 would further

submit that Reply was also filed in the Family Suit No. 147 of 2017

narrating the conduct of the applicant prima facie disclosing offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 and 114 of the IPC and

Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Page 6 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

4.3The learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 as well as the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State

submitted that as per the settled law, inherent powers under

Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with a view

to curb the abuse of process of law. It is submitted that in the case

on hand, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants and

hence, they requested that it is ultimately a matter of trial after

which, the truth could be churned out and hence, it is requested

not to entertain this application.

4.4Making such submissions, it is urged by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor that this application may not be

entertained and it is requested to be rejected.

5.Heard, the learned advocates for the parties and perused the

papers available on record.

5.1At the outset, it would be apt to refer to a decision in case of

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein, the

Hon’ble Apex Court crystallized seven distinct, illustrative

categories of cases where judicial intervention under Section 482 of

the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution is necessitated to secure

the ends of justice and clip any abuse of the process of Court. The

relevant portion of Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted

below:

Page 7 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

“(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 ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if

any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the

Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of

S.155(2) of the code.

(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or

complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not

disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case

against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 S.155(2) of the Code.

(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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/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

malafide 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."

Page 8 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

5.2The applicants have preferred this application under Section

482 of the Code, seeking the quashing of the First Information

Report (FIR) and all consequential proceeding in pursuance

thereto. The allegations against the present applicants are with

regard to quarreling on small things; the applicant No. 1 - husband

was not behaving in a proper manner; he (applicant No. 1) also

took away her one year old child to Rajkot and when she went to

Rajkot, she and her family members were not allowed to enter the

house. Further, the de facto complainant was threatened to beat.

Further, her Stridhan etc. were not returned. Thus, it appears that

a matrimonial discord between the husband and wife led to filing

of the present FIR in which all the family members are implicated.

5.3Before adverting to the case on hand, it would be

appropriate to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Preeti

Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (0) AIJEL-SC 48656, wherein the

Court held:

“28.It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately

matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the

Courts in our country including this Court are flooded with

matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and

unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

29.The Courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating

from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as

under:-

[”498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting

her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the

Page 9 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three

years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this Section, cruelty’ means:- [(a)

any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,

limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or ]

[(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a

view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any

unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on

account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such

demand.”]

]

30.It is a matter of common experience that most of these

complaints under Sec. 498-A IPC are led in the heat of the

moment over; trivial issues without proper deliberations.

We come across a large number of such complaints which

are not even bona fide and are led with oblique motive. At

the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases

of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

31.The learned members of the Bar have enormous social

responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family

life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated

versions of small incidents : should not be reflected in the criminal

complaints. Majority of the complaints are led either on their

advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar

who belong to a-noble profession must maintain its noble traditions

and should treat every complaint under Sec. 498-A as a basic

human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the

parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human

problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their

abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the

society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure

that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

Page 10 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

32.Unfortunately, at the time of ling of the complaint the

implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the

complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable

harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his

close relations.

33.The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and

punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is

a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of

implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not

uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it

is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be

extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints

and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing

with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s

close relations who had been living in different cities and never

visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided

would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the

complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and

circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted

criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the

relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common

knowledge that in cases led by the complainant if the husband or

the husband's relations : had to remain in jail even for a few days,

it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The

process of suffering is extremely long and painful.

34.Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a

serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the

legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that

exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number

of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in

a very: large number of cases.

35.The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all

concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may. also not be able

to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately

a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the

Courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace,

Page 11 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the

legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and

make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the

legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion

and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary

changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to

send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the

Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it

before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate

steps in the larger interest of the society.”

5.4Further, in the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v.

State of Bihar, 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68351, the Apex Court observed

that:

“12.Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and

content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention

that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at

preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband

and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention.

However, it is equally true, that in recent times,

matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased

significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction

surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than

ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ

provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle

personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

13.This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs.

State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472 has observed:-

“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the

laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband

or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty

had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as

mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the

Page 12 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

Act 46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A

covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit

suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger

to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet

unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large

number of cases continue to be led under already referred to

some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This

Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such

complaints are led in the heat of the moment over trivial

issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the

time of ling of the complaint, implications and consequences

are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled

for harassment not only to the accused but also to the

complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of

settlement.”

14.Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 it

was also observed:-

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes

in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly

revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced

with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a

woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The

fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable

offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the

provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by

disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the

husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a

quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-

mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for

decades are arrested.”

15.xxx

16.16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.,

(2012) 10 SCC 741 it was observed:-

Page 13 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

"21. 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

vs. 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."

17.Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018)

14 SCC 452 it was also observed that:-

“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the

distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial

disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband

should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations

unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime

are made out.”

18.The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this

court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse

Page 14 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating

relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without

analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant

as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said

judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus

allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left

unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore,

this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from

proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when

no prima facie case is made out against them.

5.5Tested on the above observations in various

pronouncements of the Apex Court, if the case on hand is

adverted, following aspects emerge:

a)the allegations against the applicants are vague and

omnibus;

b)the ingredients of the offences alleged are not satisfied qua

the present applicants inasmuch as, so far as offence punishable

under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, the complainant

alleged that all accused harassed her but no specific and distinct

allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein,

i.e., none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in

furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This

simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role

played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. Cruelty, as

defined in Section 498A IPC is: (a) any wilful conduct which is of

such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or

Page 15 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether

mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman

where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any

person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any

property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or

any person related to her to meet such demand. The FIR in

question reveals no such conduct and/or act on the part of the

applicants herein so as to attract the provisions of Section 498A

IPC. It is trite that small and scattered incidents without any

immediate proximity do not constitute offence of cruelty;

c)furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment

and demand for dowry made in the FIR, however, without there

being any specific instance. There is not an iota of averment in the

FIR as to what were the demands much less there is any demand

for dowry was made by the applicants and thence, the provisions of

Dowry Prohibition Act are also not attracted;

d)so far as Section 323 IPC, which relates to punishment for

voluntary causing of hurt, is concerned, FIR reveals nothing to

show as to what hurt was caused to the de facto complainant.

There is not even an allegation of slapping the de facto

complainant. Mere allegation in the FIR is to the effect that the

de facto complainant was prevented from entering into the house,

and threatened that if entered, she would be pushed away, which in

the opinion of the Court cannot fall into voluntary causing any

Page 16 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

hurt to the de facto complainant and thus, ingredients of this

section are also not satisfied;

e)so far as Section 406 IPC is concerned, the same relates to

criminal breach of trust. Assuming for a moment that ornaments

and Stridhan or the dowry, if any, are in the custody of the present

applicants, in that case, reference of judgment and decree of the

Family Court in Family Suit No. 147 of 2016 would be apposite,

from which, it would be evident from Exh. 65, which is the Receipt

of having received Stridhan back by the de facto complainant,

which is dated 23.02.2014 and signed by her. It is pertinent to

note that aspect of having not received the Stridhan and ornaments

back is coming forward for the first time after filing of the divorce

petition by the applicant No. 1 in the year 2016, in the present

FIR, which is filed in 2017 (25.04.2017) and the said aspect of not

received Stridhan etc. is also not challenged by the de facto

complainant. Thus, invocation of Section 406 IPC is incompatible

with the facts on record. Further, the applicants have already made

it clear that they are ready and willing to part with, if anything,

remains with them and to handover the de facto complainant;

f)the contents of the FIR itself, does not repose confidence so

far as allegations qua present applicants;

g) in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC

452, it is held that the Courts should be careful in proceeding

Page 17 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial

disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not

be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific

instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

5.6In view of the above, taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case vis-a-vis the aforesaid decisions of the

Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

present case squarely falls within the parameters (1), (3), (5) and (7)

as enshrined in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) as the proceedings

against the present applicants appear to be manifestly frivolous

and instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance

and accordingly, the Court is inclined to exercise powers vested

under Section 482 of the Code and quash the FIR qua the present

applicants.

7.In fine, this application succeeds and is allowed, accordingly.

FIR being C.R. No. I-106 of 2017 dated 25.04.2017, registered with

Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City, District: Rajkot City for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 and 114 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, along with all consequential proceedings

emanating therefrom, is quashed and set aside qua the present

applicants only.

7.1Rule is made absolute, accordingly.

Page 18 of 19

R/CR.MA/12198/2017(GJHC240620682017) JUDGMENT DATED:

01/09/2026

7.2It goes without saying that de facto complainant may

recourse to the remedy available to her under the law, if so

advised, for getting the remaining Stridhan etc., if any.

7.3Direct service is permitted.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]

hiren/23tss1926

Page 19 of 19