MADINABEN ABDULBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/6820/2014 (GJHC240476402014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 6820 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MADINABEN ABDULBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MM SAIYED(1806) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS MARIYA M DALAL(3957) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
ROHAN N SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 08/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present Petition, the petitioners have prayed
to quash and set aside the impugned FIR bearing FIR No. I-
21/2014 registered with B Division Police Station, Bharuch, for
the offences punishable under Section 406,420,114 and 504 of
the IPC and other consequential proceeding arising therefrom.
2. The facts in nutshell are to the effect that:-
2.1 It is alleged that the accused No. 1 is the complaint's
mother and the accused No. 2 is the Original Complainant’s
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 19:54:04 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/6820/2014 (GJHC240476402014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
sister. The Complainant of this case had entered into a love
marriage against the will of her parents. Consequently accused
Nos. 1 and 2 went to the complainant’s house over the past six
months and told the Complainant’s sister,” You live here alone
and many incidents of theft occur, so your life is in danger.” Thus,
under the pretext of keeping everything safe, all the gold and
documents such as her husband’s passport, election card, Aadhar
Card etc they took away by winning her trust. When the
complainant demanded such things back, they committed a
breach of trust and cheating by not returning them. The alleged
accused Nos. 3,4 and 5 instigated and assisted in the same and
thereby, committed the offense.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner at the outset would
submit that the Petitioner No. 5 herein, namely Abdulrasid Ahmed
Patel has expired on 12.05.2021 and his death certificate is
already on record at Page No. 97 to the memo of the Petition.
Hence, this Petition is abated qua him.
3.1 So far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the
Learned Advocate does not press this Petition qua them. Hence,
the Petition is heard qua petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 only.
3.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner would further submit
that there is an unexplained delay of approximately six months in
lodging the FIR. The essential ingredients necessary to attract the
provisions of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are
conspicuously absent. The allegations levelled against the
present petitioners are inherently absurd, baseless, and
improbable.
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 19:54:04 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/6820/2014 (GJHC240476402014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
3.3 It is further submitted that Respondent No. 3 herself had
handed over the passport and Election Card of her husband with
a view to preventing him from travelling abroad. The said
documents were subsequently returned to Respondent No. 3
upon her demand. Thus, there is no question of any dishonest
misappropriation or cheating or breach of trust on the part of the
present petitioners.
3.4 It is submitted that there is no material whatsoever on record
to connect Accused Nos. 3 and 4 with the allegations pertaining
to Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the
allegations levelled against the present petitioners are baseless,
unfounded, and devoid of any substantive material. Eventually, it
is requested to allow this Petition.
4. Per contra, Learned Advocate Ms. Mariya M Dalal and
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since a
prima facie case is made out from the reading of the FIR, as well
as the charge-sheet papers, this Court should not enter into a
mini-trial while exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC
and thus argued to reject the present petition.
5. Heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties.
5.1 This Court has gone through the averments made in the
FIR. Considering the death certificate of petitioner No. 5 namely
Abdulrasid Ahmed Patel, produced by the learned Advocate for
the petitioner, the petition qua the petitioner No. 5 is abated.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 19:54:04 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/6820/2014 (GJHC240476402014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
5.2 As far as the allegations against Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are
concerned, the entire investigation papers as well as the charge-
sheet are conspicuously silent with regard to their involvement in
the alleged offences. Even the statements recorded during the
course of investigation and the recovery of the passport of the
husband and the Election Card do not disclose any incriminating
material against Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. A bare perusal of the
FIR, the investigation papers, and the charge-sheet clearly
reveals that there are no specific allegations against Petitioner
Nos. 3 and 4, thus, it clearly transpires that they have been
wrongly roped into the present case. Thus, no offence under
Section 406,420,504 and 114 of IPC are made out.
5.3 What has been alleged in the FIR is that all the accused
persons used to visit the residence of the complainant from time
to time, quarrel with her, and use abusive language. Such vague,
general and omnibus allegations arising out of alleged family
skirmishes, without any specific instance of intentional insult or
provocation, would not, by themselves, attract the provisions of
Section 504 of the IPC, in as much as, the necessary ingredients
to attract Section 504 would be that there has to be intentional
insult to provoke any person which likely to be cause him to
breach public peace.
5.4 Thus, the necessary ingredients being (a) intentional insult,
(b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person
insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such
provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 19:54:04 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/6820/2014 (GJHC240476402014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace
or to commit any other offence. The mere fact that the accused
abused the complainant and quarrelled with her, by itself, is not
sufficient to warrant Invocation of Section 504 of the IPC.
5.5 As far as Section 406 and 420 of IPC are concerned, in view
of the judgment in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.
And Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , reported
in 2024(10)SCC 690 these sections cannot co-exist and as such
no allegations qua these sections are attracted or found from the
papers of chargesheet. Hence, no case is made out of Section
406 and 420 of IPC.
5.6 As far as the present Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 are
concerned, no overt act has been attributed to them, and their
involvement is not surfacing on record from the papers of the
charge-sheet. Under such circumstances, captioned Petition is
required to be partly allowed.
6. Accordingly, This Petition is allowed qua Petitioner Nos. 3
and 4 only. The FIR bearing FIR No. I-21/2014 registered with B
Division Police Station, Bharuch, for the offences punishable
under Section 406,420,114 and 504 of the IPC, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners
No. 3 and 4, stands quashed and set aside.
7. So far as proceedings qua Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are
concerned, the law shall take its own course and the trial Court
shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law without
being influenced by this order and the interim relief, if any, qua
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 19:54:04 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/6820/2014 (GJHC240476402014) JUDGMENT DATED: 08/09/2026
them is vacated.
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 Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 19:54:04 IST 2026