IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 18578 of 2019 ==========================================================

KANAIYALAL S/O KANTILAL PATEL & ANR.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MRS NISHA M PARIKH(2397) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 07/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-32 of 2019 registered with Ranip Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506(2), 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Seeking quashment of questioned FIR, learned advocate for the applicant submits that petitioners are in law of the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has made general allegations against the petitioners in typical fashion to enrope petitioner in the offence. It is further submitted that FIR even if taken on its face value, it could not establish offence of section 498(A) and 506(2) of IPC. Reading questioned FIR, learned advocate for the applicant submits that right to file FIR has been misused by complainant and it is filed to pressurize the petitioner and therefore, it is submitted to allow the petition.

3. Learned advocate for respondent no.2 and learned APP on the other hand, opposing plea to quash the FIR would submit that according to FIR, the petitioners were inciting husband of the complainant and it was root cause for offence alleged against the husband. In view of that, it is submitted that let trial to conduct against the petitioners to test veracity of the allegations.

On this grounds, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.

4. Apt to note that allegations levelled in the FIR are general and vague in nature. In order to establish offence under section 498(A) of IPC, one need to averred that there was harassment or cruelty. Cruelty means conduct likely to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health physically or mentally to the complainant or harassment with a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security.

5. In the present case, FIR even if taken on its face value, so far as petitioners is concerned, role of the petitioners is found to be limited of inciting husband of the complainant. It is alleged that due to such incitement, husband of the complaint was extending physical and mental cruelty to the complainant. However, specific incidents are missing in the matter. Causal reference of the petitioners in the FIR is insufficient to take cognizance.

6. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh [2012 (10) SCC 741], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 15, 16,17, 20,21 and 25 as under :-

"15. Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature in the case of Ramesh V/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at 738 allegations were made in a complaint against the husband, the inlaws, husband's brother and sister who were all the petitioners before the High Court wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police in the court of Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. Thereupon, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on 13.2.2002. Four of the accused-appellants were arrested and released on bail by the magistrate at Mumbai. The appellants had filed petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in complaint case on the file of the Judic