HANSABEN W/O. NATWARLAL CHAUHAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 2785 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
HANSABEN W/O. NATWARLAL CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIT TOLIA, SR ADVOCATE with HARDIKKUMAR D
RAO(8174) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 22/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (the Code) is filed by the applicant – who is the
mother-in-law of the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant,
praying to quash and set aside the FIR being I-C.R. No. 4 of 2018
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
dated 13.01.2018, registered with Mahila Police Station (East),
District: Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 494, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Facts in nutshell of the case of the prosecution are that
marriage of the son of the present applicant namely Himanshu
Natvarlal Chauhan solemnized with the de facto complainant on
01.02.2007 and they went to London and were residing there. It is
further the case of the prosecution that present applicant being
mother-in-law of respondent No. 2 went to stay for short time at
London with original accused No. 1 being his son and the present
respondent No. 2 and during that period, allegation of abetting the
original accused No. 1 of ill-treatment to the respondent No. 2
herein is levelled. It is further alleged that since 30.04.2017,
original accused No. 1 informed respondent No. 2 that he is not
interested in the complainant – respondent No. 2 herein and
married to her with a view to settle in London only.
2.1 It is also alleged that original accused No. 1 filed divorce
petition before a Court of London and that, the husband and wife
(original accused No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 herein) are
residing separately.
2.2 It is further alleged that subsequently, the respondent No. 2
came to know that the accused No. 1 i.e. husband – Himanshu also
remarried with another girl namely Vaishaliben Solanki in
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
December 2012 and thereafter, took divorce from her also. It is
alleged that the applicant did not inform the respondent No. 2
about the second marriage of the husband – accused No. 1 and
thereby, abetted the offence. Thus, on the said facts, FIR in
question came to be registered.
3. Heard, learned senior advocate for the applicant, the learned
advocate for the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State
and perused the material on record.
3.1 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would submit
that present applicant is the mother-in-law and is not aware about
the factum of remarriage of the accused No. 1 – son of the applicant
with another girl and that, the accused No. 1 is residing in London
for last about 10 years. It is submitted that the present FIR is filed
by the respondent No. 2 with an oblique and ulterior motive, only
with a view to pressurize the present applicant so as to come to the
terms with her.
3.2 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would further
submit that present applicant is falsely arraigned in the crime in
question inasmuch as, the entire dispute is between the husband
and the wife and she being the mother-in-law, has been wrongly
roped into the alleged offence and thus, continuation of criminal
proceedings against the present applicant would amount to abuse
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
of process of law.
3.3 It is submitted that no prima facie case for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 406, and/or 323 IPC is made
out against the present applicant inasmuch as, the marriage
between the son of the present applicant (original accused No. 1)
and the respondent No. 2 is void for the reason that wife
(respondent No. 2), having stated to be unmarried at the time of
contracting marriage with the original accused No. 1 – son of the
applicant, nonetheless, took divorce from her earlier husband only
on 20.11.2007, whereas, the marriage of the accused No. 1 and the
respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 01.02.2007, and as such, no
case under any of the sections is made out against the present
applicant.
3.4 It is submitted that so far as offence punishable under
Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, the allegations are too vague
and general and would not fall within the four corners of the
provisions of such an offence. Further, so far as offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is submitted that
there is no question of entrustment of any property or with any
dominion over the property and that, there is no allegation of
either such entrustment or dishonest misappropriation or
conversion of the property by anyone.
3.5 The learned senior advocate for the applicant would also
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
submit that even otherwise there is delay in lodging the FIR for
which, no plausible explanation is forthcoming on record.
3.6 Thus, making above submissions, it is requested to allow this
application as no prima facie case is made out against the present
applicant.
4. Conversely , the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 - de
facto complainant would submit that a prima facie strong case is
made out against the present applicant on the bare reading of the
FIR itself and accordingly, this Court should not interfere in the
criminal proceedings motioned against the applicant and may not
conduct a mini trial while considering the quashing application.
4.1 The learned advocate for the original complainant would
further submit that the present applicant suppressed the fact of
second marriage of the accused No. 1 – husband with another girl
from the present complainant and thereby, abetted the accused
No. 1 and thus, the matter requires a thorough investigation and
thus, requested to dismiss this application.
4.2 The learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State
submitted that as per the settled law, inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with a view
to curb the abuse of process of law. It is submitted that in the case
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
on hand, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant and
hence, they requested that it is ultimately a matter of trial after
which, the truth could be churned out and hence, it is requested
not to entertain this application and it is requested to be rejected.
5. Heard, the learned advocates for the parties and perused the
papers available on record.
5.1 At the outset, it would be apt to refer to a decision in case of
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein, the
Hon’ble Apex Court crystallized seven distinct, illustrative
categories of cases where judicial intervention under Section 482 of
the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution is necessitated to secure
the ends of justice and clip any abuse of the process of Court. The
relevant portion of Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted
below:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if
any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where, there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
5.2 The applicant has preferred this application under Section
482 of the Code, seeking the quashing of the First Information
Report (FIR) and all consequential proceeding in pursuance
thereto. The allegation against the present applicant, more
particularly, is to abet the original accused No. 1.
5.3 Before adverting to the case on hand, it would be
appropriate to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (0) AIJEL-SC 48656 , wherein the
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
Court held:
“28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately
matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the
Courts in our country including this Court are flooded with
matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and
unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
29. The Courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating
from Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which reads as
under:-
[”498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting
her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this Section, cruelty’ means:- [(a)
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 ]
[(b) 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.”]
]
30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these
complaints under Sec. 498-A IPC are led in the heat of the
moment over; trivial issues without proper deliberations.
We come across a large number of such complaints which
are not even bona fide and are led with oblique motive. At
the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases
of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family
life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated
versions of small incidents : should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are led either on their
advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar
who belong to a-noble profession must maintain its noble traditions
and should treat every complaint under Sec. 498-A as a basic
human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the
parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human
problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their
abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the
society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure
that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
32. Unfortunately, at the time of ling of the complaint the
implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the
complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable
harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his
close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is
a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of
implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it
is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s
close relations who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided
would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted
criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common
knowledge that in cases led by the complainant if the husband or
the husband's relations : had to remain in jail even for a few days,
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The
process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a
serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the
legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number
of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in
a very: large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may. also not be able
to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately
a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the
Courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace,
harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the
legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and
make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the
legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion
and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary
changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to
send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the
Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it
before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate
steps in the larger interest of the society.”
5.4 Further, in the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v.
State of Bihar, 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68351 , the Apex Court observed
that:
“12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and
content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention
that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at
preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband
and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention.
However, it is equally true, that in recent times,
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased
significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction
surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than
ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ
provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472 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 the
Act 46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A
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. It is a matter of serious concern that large
number of cases continue to be led under already referred to
some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This
Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such
complaints are led in the heat of the moment over trivial
issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the
time of ling of the complaint, implications and consequences
are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled
for harassment not only to the accused but also to the
complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of
settlement.”
14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273 it
was also observed:-
“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes
in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly
revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced
with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The
fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable
offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by
disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the
husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a
quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-
mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for
decades are arrested.”
15. xxx
16. 16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.,
(2012) 10 SCC 741 it was observed:-
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt
observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao
vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held
that the High Court should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family
members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation
which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed
therein with which we entirely agree that: "there has been an
outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is
a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But
little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the result
that those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed
as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in that process the
parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter
was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."
17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018)
14 SCC 452 it was also observed that:-
“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the
distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial
disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband
should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations
unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out.”
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this
court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse
of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without
analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant
as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left
unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore,
this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from
proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when
no prima facie case is made out against them.
5.5 Tested on the above observations in various
pronouncements of the Apex Court, if the case on hand is
adverted, following undisputed facts are emerged:
i) the respondent No. 2 – original complainant earlier married
to one Bakul Jasvantlal Shah on 12.05.2003;
ii) the marriage of the respondent No. 2 herein and the original
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
accused No. 1 (son of the applicant herein) came to be solemnized
on 01.02.2007;
iii) the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant filed a divorce
petition on 26.07.2007 before the Family Court at Ahmedabad
wherein, the divorce decree came to be passed on 20.11.2007;
iv) the applicant and the original accused No. 1 (son of the
present applicant) and the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant
having stayed together from 01.02.2007 i.e. from the date of
marriage till 18.10.2007 i.e. the date on which, the original accused
No. 1 husband as well as the complainant left for London;
v) as far as these eight months are concerned, there are no
allegations against the present applicant, however, the allegations
are with regard to physical abuse in London somewhere in
November 2014;
vi) complainant – respondent No. 2 herein and the original
accused No. 1 filed divorce petition in London in April 2017,
whereas, the present FIR is filed only on 13.01.2018.
5.6 At this stage, it would also be apt to refer to the decision of
the Apex Court in P.Sivakumar and Others v. State Rep. By The
Deputy Superintendent of Police etc., 2023 SCCOnLine 1737 ,
wherein, the Court held:
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
“7. Undisputedly, the marriage between the appellant No.1 and
PW-1 has been found to be null and void. As such the conviction
under Section 498-A IPC would not be sustainable in view of the
judgment of this Court in the case Shivcharan Lal Verma's case
supra. So far as the conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the learned trial Judge by an
elaborate reasoning, arrived at after appreciation of evidence, has
found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. In an appeal/revision, the High court could have
set aside the order of acquittal only if the findings as recorded by
the trial Court were perverse or impossible.”
5.7 Further, in Shivcharan LaL Verma and Anr. v. State of M.P.,
(2007) 15 SCC 369 , while dealing in a Criminal Appeal against
conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, the Apex Court held
that, “alleged second marriage of a person, during the subsistence of a
first valid marriage is null and void” , and therefore, the conviction
under Section 498A IPC was set aside however, the conviction
under Section 306 IPC was confirmed.
6. From the undisputed facts on record, the factum of marriage
of the respondent No. 2 herein with one Bakul Jasvantlal Shah
prior to the marriage with the original accused No. 1 on 01.02.2007,
came to be dissolved only on 20.11.2007 and thus, as per the settled
legal position, the marriage with the present accused No. 1 is null
and void and therefore, there is no question of attraction of Section
498A IPC.
6.1 So far as allegations of physical abused is concerned, the said
allegations are of November 2014 when original accused No. 1 –
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
son of the present applicant, present applicant and the
complainant were residing in London. The allegations appear to
be vague and general in nature. No specific details, date, time and
or place have been narrated in the FIR. Further, in view of the
afore-stated settled legal position, when the present applicant has
been roped into the offence in question without there being any
role attributed to her, the same does not inspire confidence.
6.2 As far as allegation for the offence punishable under Section
494 IPC is concerned, the same relates to punishment when
marriage is solemnized again during the lifetime of husband or
wife. It clearly transpires from the undisputed facts that subsisting
previous marriage, the present complainant wife married with the
original accused No. 1 – son of the present applicant and having
married with him, obtained divorce decree. Though, it is alleged
that there is customary divorce, however, the learned advocate for
the de facto complainant could not point out, either from the record
or from any document as to prevalence of such a custom in the
caste to which, the complainant belonged. Be that as it may, the
allegations that the original accused No. 1 had married
subsequently, to another girl namely Vaishaliben Solanki in the
year 2012 and also obtained divorce from her, would pale into
insignificance in view of the fact that the complainant herself
entered into marriage with the son of the present applicant -
original accused No. 1 in subsistence of previous marriage.
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
6.3 So far as Section 406 of the IPC is concerned, which relates to
punishment for criminal breach of trust as defined under Section
405 IPC, where the requirements are: i) entrustment with property,
or with any dominion over the properly, and ii) on such
entrustment, where, the accused by dishonest intention,
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, to the
detriment of the person who entrusted such property, are the
requirements. In the absence of any such entrustment alleged in
the FIR in question itself, the question of attracting the penal
provision under Section 406 IPC does not arise.
6.4 So far as Section 114 IPC is concerned, when the ingredients
of the substantive offences are not satisfied, as discussed herein
above, so far as the present applicant is concerned, this section
would not apply.
7. In view of the above, taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case vis-a-vis the aforesaid decisions of the
Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present case squarely falls within the parameters (1), (3), (5) and (7)
as enshrined in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) as the proceedings
against the present applicants appear to be manifestly frivolous
and instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
and accordingly, the Court is inclined to exercise powers vested
under Section 482 of the Code and quash the FIR qua the present
applicant.
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/2785/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240101692018)
8. In fine , this application succeeds and is allowed, accordingly.
FIR being I-C.R. No. 4 of 2018 dated 13.01.2018, registered with
Mahila Police Station (East), District: Ahmedabad for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 406 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom, is quashed and set aside qua the present
applicant.
8.1 Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is
permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/SB/1/3tss221026
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Thu Oct 22 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 04:11:06 IST 2026