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, 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.

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.

3.1 The 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.

3.2 The 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.

3.3 It is further submitted that while the de facto complainant alleges harassment and cruelty, it is other way round i