The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) and all subsequent criminal proceedings against a Bhavnagar resident, ruling that the prosecution’s narrative of a "pre-planned trap" was inherently improbable and constituted an abuse of the legal process. Justice P. M. Raval, in his judgment dated October 12, 2026, determined that the criminal complaint, initially filed under Section 354 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), lacked judicial creditworthiness and appeared to be an afterthought meant to criminalize a domestic dispute.

The case originated from an incident reported on February 26, 2016, at the Nilambaug Police Station in Bhavnagar. The complainant, a housewife, alleged that her neighbor, Sanjay Harishbhai Acharya, who operated a local food stall, had harassed her for roughly three months. She claimed that during this period, the petitioner repeatedly stalked her and displayed obscene video clips on his mobile phone whenever she stepped outside her home. The complainant stated that she had initially refrained from reporting these incidents to her husband to protect her modesty and reputation from societal judgment.

However, the core of the criminal charge rested on an incident occurring on February 25, 2016. According to the complaint, the victim, fearing further harassment, informed her husband of the petitioner’s pattern of behavior and his alleged threat to visit their residence between 3:30 PM and 4:30 PM that afternoon. The complainant further alleged that she and her husband intentionally arranged for her to be at home during this time to catch the petitioner "red-handed." She asserted that when the petitioner arrived, he grabbed her feet and made romantic advances, only to be interrupted by the husband’s arrival, which forced the petitioner to flee and leave behind a mobile phone that was later seized by authorities.

Challenging the Fabrication of Evidence

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIR was an engineered device, born not from genuine criminal activity but from an unexpected and embarrassing social encounter that the couple sought to spin into a criminal matter. The petitioner maintained that he was a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record and that the charges were entirely fabricated as a "counter-blast" to shield the complainant and her spouse from the fallout of their personal vendetta or a misunderstanding regarding their domestic situation.

The High Court undertook a granular examination of the complainant's narrative, focusing on the glaring inconsistencies between the alleged long-term fear of the accused and the deliberate choice to create a "trap." Justice Raval emphasized that the complainant’s claim of enduring months of terror to avoid social stigma was fundamentally incompatible with her decision to orchestrate a private confrontation inside her home.

"If a victim is genuinely living under the terror of an aggressive stalker for months to protect her reputation, it defies natural human conduct that she would suddenly choose to withhold police intervention and instead orchestrate a private 'trap' at her home with the help of his husband," the court observed in its ruling. By inviting the alleged offender into the domestic space, the court reasoned that the complainant had effectively negated the premise that she was an unwilling victim living in constant fear.

Judicial Scrutiny of Vexatious Proceedings

The court highlighted the dangers of allowing such cases to proceed to trial, noting that when the foundational narrative of a case appears to be a total fabrication designed for ulterior motives, the judiciary has a duty to intervene. Justice Raval relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in the case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. versus State Of U.P. & Ors. , which dictates that in cases where criminal proceedings are alleged to be frivolous or vexatious, the court must look beyond the mere averments of the FIR.

The judgment stated: "The story of setting a pre-arranged trap to catch the petitioner red-handed is an afterthought. It strongly corroborates the defence's case that the husband unexpectedly caught the petitioner and the complainant together, and to cover up the domestic fallout, embarrassment, or suspicion arising therefrom, an embellished version of a forced entry and outraging of modesty under Section 354 IPC is concocted."

By "reading between the lines," the High Court concluded that the criminal machinery had been set in motion for personal reasons rather than the pursuit of justice. The court further held that requiring the petitioner to face the ordeal of a trial would be an abuse of the court's process, particularly given the total lack of inherent probability in the sequence of events described by the prosecution.

Termination of Criminal Proceedings

The court’s decision serves as a significant check on the misuse of provisions intended to protect women, emphasizing that the legal system should not be utilized as a tool for settling private grievances through the orchestration of staged confrontations. Justice Raval remarked that in such circumstances, it is the responsibility of the court to identify the lack of judicial creditworthiness before unnecessary resources are expended on a trial that is destined to fail due to its own contradictions.

With the order of October 12, 2026, the High Court of Gujarat has officially quashed the FIR being C.R. No. I-32/2016, the subsequent chargesheet filed on April 25, 2016, and all related proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 2838 of 2016. The petitioner, having successfully demonstrated that the allegations were inherently improbable and legally meritless, is now cleared of the charges. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in filtering out vexatious litigation, ensuring that the serious nature of crimes like those under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is reserved for genuine cases of outraging modesty, rather than being diluted by fabricated domestic narratives. The petitioner is now fully discharged from the criminal proceedings initiated against him.