IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 6227 of 2022 ==========================================================

LALCHANDRARAO DEVJIBHAI YADAV (Disposed of as per hon'ble court order dt.21/4/22) & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. HARDIK B KORADIYA(9955) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4,5 MS ASMITA PATEL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 27/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned APP Ms. Patel has placed on record the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the present applicant has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It is submitted by the learned advocates for the respective parties that, as the husband has been acquitted by the learned trial Court and no specific role is attributed to the present applicant except general allegations, continuation of the proceedings against the present applicant would amount to harassment.

3. The present application is opposed by learned APP Ms.

Asmita Patel appearing for the respondent–State.

4. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Koradiya, particularly the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in favour of respondent No.1 (the husband), and upon perusal of the allegations made in the FIR, it emerges that the FIR is nothing but a fallout of matrimonial discord.

5. This Court has also considered the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2008) 2 SCC 561 wherein Apex Court has observed as follow:

“17. The term “cruelty”, which has been made punishable under Section 498-A IPC has been defined in the Explanation appended to the said section, to mean: (i) 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 (ii) 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. Therefore, the consequences of “cruelty”, which are either likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury, danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman or the harassment of a woman, where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand is required to be established in order to bring home an offence under Section 498-A IPC.”

6. This Court has also considered the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 wherein the Apex Court in para 12 to 17 has observed as follow:

:12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , 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 Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A 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. [ Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassmen