IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 5726 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No 

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

LEENABEN HARMEET SAKI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS. VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 11/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The present application has been filed seeking the quashment of the First Information Report lodged at the Mahila Police Station, Bhavnagar, recorded as II C.R. No. 5 of 2013, under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, against four accused persons, including the present applicant. The applicant is the sister-in-law of the first informant and was residing in Uganda at the relevant time.

2. The allegations in the complaint state that Respondent No. 2 married the applicant’s brother on 10.12.2010. It is contended that immediately following the marriage, all the accused, including the applicant, allegedly taunted the complainant on the ground of inadequate dowry. The complaint further alleges that the husband, at the instigation of the accused, physically assaulted the complainant, and while they were in Uganda, she was compelled to perform work or leave the country. As a result of such harassment, Respondent No. 2 returned to India and attempted to reconcile with her husband. When reconciliation failed, the present complaint was filed, implicating the applicant, the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Ronak Rawal for the State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that the applicant was married and residing with her family, including a daughter, in Uganda prior to the marriage of Respondent No. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that Respondent No. 2 returned to India because she found the living conditions in Uganda unsuitable and developed health issues. It is further submitted that the applicant was falsely implicated in the FIR merely to exert pressure on her brother. Given that the applicant is married, residing separately, and has her own family, the learned advocate requests that the FIR constitutes an abuse of the process of law and merits quashment..

5. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Rawal submits that the complainant currently resides in New Jersey, United States of America, and despite repeated efforts, her statement could not be recorded. Learned APP Mr. Rawal further submits that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offences and, therefore, the application for quashment should be dismissed, allowing the investigation to proceed.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties and perused the averments in the FIR, it appears that the dispute primarily concerns the husband and wife. The present applicant, who is a married woman with her own family, appears to have been implicated in the FIR to exert pressure on her brother. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 472, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

“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 whic