Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 6572
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J
BHAVNABEN RAMABHAI BHARVAD & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3187 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR HEMANT MAKWANA, MR NATVAR D BHARWAD
For the Respondents: MR VISHAL B MEHTA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The court has the authority to quash an FIR when the allegations do not constitute an offense or are inherently improbable, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing FIR - FIR lodged alleging kidnapping which does not constitute any offence and is found to be fabricated, causing pressure on family members - Court held that allowing the FIR to stand amounts to absurdity. (Paras 1, 7, 9)
(B) Quashing of Proceedings - The court exercises jurisdiction to quash an FIR in instances where allegations do not prima facie reveal an offense or are based on inherent improbability, as demonstrated by uncontroverted evidence. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged FIR for alleged kidnapping stating that it was a fabricated claim made by complainant against the parents of the victim daughter, who had married of her own accord and was not forcibly taken. (Paras 1.1, 2.3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the FIR to lack allegations constituting criminal offense under the Atrocities Act, allowing the petition to quash the FIR. (Paras 6, 9)
Issues: The core issue resolved by the court was whether the FIR's allegations substantiate any cognizable offense leading to lawful consequence. (Paras 7, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that there must be sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and quashing may occur when the allegations are found to be inherently improbable or non-substantive. (Paragraph 8)
Result: Petition allowed, FIR quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the petitioner's claimed abduction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the fir and family settlement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence and context of fir. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal guiding principles for quashing firs. (Para 8) |
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seeks to quash the FIR being CR No. 146 of 2014 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmdedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 365 , 114 of Indian Penal Code & Section 3 (1) (15) of the Gujarat Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocity), Act
1989.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are the parents namely father and mother of the petitioner no. 1, i.e. victim who is alleged to have kidnapped by her parents and family members as per the version of the complainant. It may be submitted that petitioner no.1 had got her marriage solemnized with the son of complainant i.e Mehul in accordance with Hindu rituals on 25.02. 2014. The bridegroom and bride had jointly approached this Hon'ble Court by way of filing Special Criminal Application No. 1289 of 2014, inter alia, seeking protection and safety for their lives and accordingly, this Court gave security cover at the cost of the petitioners therein.
2.2 On 18.07.2014, the complainant had lodged FIR, inter alia, alleging that her daughter in law was forcibly taken away by her parents i.e. petitioner nos. 2 & 3 as per the information given to the complainant on her mobile. It has been stated that the daughter in law of the complainant had gone to meet her parents on the ground floor. However, she was pulled up by the unknown person in Alto Car as per the version of Eye witness. The incident came to be registered as C.R.I-146 of 2014 with Chandkheda Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 365 , 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (15) of Gujarat Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocity), Act 1989.
2.3 The daughter of the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 had married to a son of complainant i.e. Mehul. As such, she had not been kidnapped by the parents and the family members, but she volunteered to come to her parental house because of the differences between her husband and the family members. She is peacefully living with the petitioner nos. 2 & 3. However, the FIR came to be registered with a view to pressurize the parents of the girl. The petitioner no.1 had sworn in her affidavit before the Notary/public stating that she was tortured by her in laws and she was not kidnapped by her parents and family members.
2.4 The petitioner No.1 had also filed complaint before the Police Inspector, Sola Police Station, stating that she herself had come to her parental home and as she could not tolerate ill treatment at the hands of her in laws and she had also informed to the local police i.e. Chandkheda Police Station with regard to her being not kidnapped but voluntarily returned to her parental place.
3. Heard learned advocates for respective parties. This is a case alleged by the mother-in-law that her daughter-in-law has been forcibly taken away by her parents and other allied of parents and therefore offence under Section 365 , 114 of Indian Penal Code & Section 3 (1) (15) of the Gujarat Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, (Prevention of Atrocity), Act 1989 has been registered.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Hemant Makwana appearing for the petitioner submited to the Court that the party has settled their dispute i.e. Family Suit No. 1941 of 2017 which was filed before the Family Court, Ahmedabad whereby decree of divorce was filed which was granted under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. He further submitted that a proceeding filed by way of Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 3081 of 2014. The Corpus that is the wife of the petitioner has told
