(MUHAMMAD) INAYAT FAKHRUDDIN SAIYED vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/14731/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240621882017)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14731 of 2017
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 29209 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
(MUHAMMAD) INAYAT FAKHRUDDIN SAIYED & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR SN BAROT(5299) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ROHAN N SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 15/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner would
submit that petitioner no. 1 in Criminal Misc. Application No.
29029 of 2016 has expired. In view of the same, petition being
Criminal Misc. Application No. 29029 of 2016 qua petitioner no. 1,
namely Yunusbhai Rasulbhai Dewan stands abated.
2. The petitioners have invoked Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking to quash and set aside FIR
being C.R. No. I-119 of 2016 dated 02.10.2016, registered before
the Kalol City Police Station, District Gandhinagar, for offenses
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:55 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/14731/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240621882017)
punishable under Sections 498A, 506(2), 107, and 114 of the IPC,
read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The facts of the FIR in nutshell are that the complainant got
th
married on 5 November, 1993, with Yunusbhai Rasulbhai
Dewan. While the initial three months of marriage went smoothly,
subsequent allegations regarding mental and physical cruelty
were leveled against the petitioners.
3.1 It is the further the case of the Complainant that in the year
2009, she was kicked out of the house and thereafter she has
lived with his two children at the residence of her brother at
Kalol. In 2012, she came to know that Yunusbhai had allegedly
remarried without her permission to one Faridaben Vora of
Village Kapadvanj, District Kheda and has thus lodged the
present FIR for the aforesaid stated offenses.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Kharadi for the petitioner would
submit that the present lodging of the FIR itself is abuse of
process of law inasmuch as, way back in year 2009/ 2010,
wherein, Yunusbhai Rasulbhai Dewan, Aminaben Rasulbhai
Dewan, Samim Sajid Dewan, Sajid Anwarbhai Dewan, Najma
Nizma Nizambhai Dewan, Nizambhai Dewan, Akbarbhai R.
Dewan, Anwarbhai R. Dewan, and Makbulbhai R. Dewan came to
be acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mehsana in
criminal case No. 1098 of 2010 for the offenses punishable under
section 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 and sections 3 and 5 of the
th
Dowry Prohibition Act by judgment and order dated 25 of May
2011. Thus, lodging of the FIR on the same grounds is nothing
but abuse of process of law.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:55 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/14731/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240621882017)
4.1 Learned advocate would further submit that even the FIR of
497 IPC read with section 507 and 114 of the IPC has been
quashed and set aside by this High Court vide order dated
19.01.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3286 of 2012.
4.2 Thus, it is argued that as held by the honorable Supreme
Court in the case of T.T. Antony versus State of Kerala and
another, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 , no second FIR on the
same facts can be lodged. More particularly, when similar
allegations have been leveled in the present FIR and for the same
period for which the petitioners have already been acquitted in
criminal case No. 1098 of 2010.
4.3 Though, various contentions have been raised in the memo
of petition by the petitioner, however, as harped upon the fact of
lodging of the second FIR on the same sets of allegations and for
the same period under consideration and thus has argued to
allow the present petition.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. S.N. Barot for the
complainant would submit that prima facie case is made out from
reading of the FIR and whether the allegations leveled in criminal
case No. 1098 of 2010 relates to the period under consideration
is a question of trial and has thus argued to reject the present
petition.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly submits
that by order dated 19.01.2018 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 3286 of 2012, FIR of 497 IPC read with section
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:55 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/14731/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240621882017)
507 and 114 of the IPC has been quashed and set aside by this
Court and further, he would fairly concede that there cannot be
any second FIR for the same set of allegations and same period.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties,
the only question which falls for consideration is whether second
FIR on the same set of allegations against the petitioners is
maintainable or not.
6.1 If criminal case No. 1098 of 2010 is perused, as stated
herein above, relates to section 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of
IPC read with section 3 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
whereas FIR dated 02.10.2016 is also under section 498A, 506(2),
107, 114 of the IPC read with section 3 and 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. If the judgment of acquittal is perused, the period
stated therein and in the present impugned FIR are same. It is
also required to be noted that there is no cohabitation between
acquittal in Criminal Case No. 1098/2010 and lodging of
impugned FIR.
6.3 As far as second marriage without the consent or divorce
from the present complainant is concerned, as stated herein
above, the same FIR has been quashed and set aside in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 3286 of 2012. Having failed in the said FIR,
subsequent FIR on the same set of allegations is not permissible
in view of the law laid down by the honorable Supreme Court in
the case of T.T. Antony (Supra) and more particularly, the point
which arose for determination before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
was whether registration of a fresh case (crime No. 2687 of
1997), which is in nature of second FIR under section 154 of CrPC,
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:55 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/14731/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240621882017)
was valid and could form the basis of fresh investigation, to which
the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered in the negative. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 27 as under:-
“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the
citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the
expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence
has to be struck by the Court. There cannot be any controversy
that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to
make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and
documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the
Magistrate. In Narangs' case (supra) it was, however, observed
that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with
the permission of the Court. However, the sweeping power of
investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to
fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident,
giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon
filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the
purview of Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of
the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a
case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive
FIRs, not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same
or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed
in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which
pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is underway or final
report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. "
6.4 If the facts of the present case are tested on the aforesaid
principles, the second FIR on the same set of facts as alleged way
back in the year 2009 and subsequently, in 2012 by way of an
FIR for adultery, having been quashed and subsequent FIR in the
year 2016 (impugned FIR), cannot be sustained.
7. In view of the above, the captioned petitions stand
allowed . The impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-119 of 2016 dated
02.10.2016, registered before the Kalol City Police Station,
District Gandhinagar, for offenses punishable under Sections
498A, 506(2), 107, and 114 of the IPC, read with Sections 3 and 7
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:55 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/14731/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240621882017)
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners, stands
quashed and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:55 IST 2026