VIKRAM NARANBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 19054 of 2014
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 20221 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
VIKRAM NARANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 02/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since both the matters arise out of the same FIR, the same
were heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
Page 1 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
2. These applications under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) are filed by the applicants
praying to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-114 of 2013
dated 01.06.2013, registered with Vejalpur Police Station,
Ahmedabad, District: Ahmedabad for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
3. Facts in nutshell of the prosecution case are that marriage of
the deceased daughter of the de facto complainant solemnized with
applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 19054 of 2014 on
15.06.2012. The applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No.
20221 of 2014 are the parents-in-law of the deceased daughter of
the de facto complainant. It is alleged that after the marriage, the
husband of the deceased, out of suspicion, used not to allow the
deceased to talk with her parents and relatives and if allowed, it
was in his presence only and that too, her talks were being
recorded. The deceased was also allegedly not allowed to visit her
parents alone and whenever visited, the applicant – husband
accompanied to her parental home. Fed up with all that, the
deceased eventually committed suicide by the hanging. Thus, on
the said facts, FIR in question came to be registered against the
applicants.
4. Though served, the respondent No. 2 - de facto complainant
has put in no appearance. The mater is old, of 2014 and hence, the
Page 2 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
Court proceeded with the matter, on merits.
5. Heard, learned advocate for the applicants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.
5.1 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 bare reading of the FIR would
reveal no case, as alleged against the present applicants, is made
out. It submitted that what is alleged in the FIR is to the effect that
the applicant – husband, out of suspicion, restricted the movement
and was not allowing the deceased to talk with anyone and if she
was allowed, it was in the presence of the applicant – husband
only. So far as the other applicants viz. parents-in-law of the
deceased are concerned, there is no allegation, worth the name, in
the FIR, save and except, that they were also keeping suspicion on
the deceased.
5.2 The learned advocate for the applicants would further
submit that Charge-sheet in the case has already been filed and
from the investigation papers, more particularly, the statements of
various witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased, it would
reveal that deceased was not allowed to go to her parental home
and that, she was not permitted to talk with anybody and that, the
applicants were keeping suspicion on her. Except that, there is
nothing on record to point that the deceased was meted out with
Page 3 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
any cruelty, that too, to the extent that she commits suicide. It is,
therefore, submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the present applicants are not at all satisfied and that, no
overt act or role has been played or even alleged, nor is there any
proximate cause to drive the deceased to commit suicide and in
the circumstances, it is urged that these applications may be
allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
6. As against that, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the respondent – State would submit that a prima facie case is made
out against the present applicants from the bare reading of the FIR
as well as the Charge-sheet papers and accordingly, exercise of
discretion under Section 482 of the Code is not warranted.
6.1 It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
that discharge application filed by the applicants below Exh. 19 in
Sessions Case No. 5 of 2014 came to be rejected by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, City Civil and Sessions
Court, Ahmedabad by an order dated 18.10.2024 recording that
prima facie case is made out against the applicants and accordingly,
it is urged that the Court may not interfere in the present
applications for quashing.
6.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
– State submitted that as per the settled law, inherent powers
Page 4 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
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 on hand, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants
and hence, it is 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 these applications and they are requested to be
rejected.
7. Heard, the learned advocates for the parties and perused the
papers available on record.
7.1 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
Page 5 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
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
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."
7.2 The applicants have preferred these applications under
Section 482 of the Code, seeking the quashing of the First
Information Report (FIR) and all consequential proceeding in
pursuance thereto. The allegations against the present applicants
are with regard to prohibiting the deceased from talking with
anybody and also to visit her parental home and to keep suspicion
Page 6 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
on the deceased and on the said facts, the husband of the deceased
and her parents-in-law are implicated.
7.3 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
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.”]
]
Page 7 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
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.
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
Page 8 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
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,
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.”
7.4 Further, in the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v.
State of Bihar, 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68351 , the Apex Court observed
that:
Page 9 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
“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,
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
Page 10 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
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
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
Page 11 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
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
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.
7.5 At this juncture, decision of the Apex Court in Abhinav
Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2026) 6 SCC
233 : 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75740, is also apt to be referred to, wherein,
the Court held:
Page 12 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
“25. What comes out essentially from the various decisions
herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of
constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring
in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still
there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the
suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous
harassment, the last proximate incident having finally
driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life.
Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’; that
final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden
impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide. What
drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on
individual predilections; but whether it is goaded,
definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of
another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the
victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or
she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by
itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting
abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes
on in the mind of the victim.
26. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative
or option, but to take his life, because of what another
person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens
rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What
constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the
alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or
words and the attendant circumstances, which in all
probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of
the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least
possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the
thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of
the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and
circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea
would depend on the facts of each case. The social status,
the community setting, the relationship between the parties
and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from
another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless
there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive
Page 13 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of
abetment under Section 306 .
27. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill
yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful
conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to
charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no
uniformity in how different individuals respond and react
under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few
runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the
extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure
imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times,
without something more to clearly discern an intention,
would not be the proper application of the penal provisions
under Section 306 .”
(emphasis supplied)
7.6 Tested on the above observations in various
pronouncements of the Apex Court, if the case on hand is
adverted, following aspects emerge:
a) the allegations against the applicants are vague and
omnibus;
b) the ingredients of the offences alleged are not satisfied qua
the present applicants inasmuch as, so far as offence punishable
under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, the complainant
alleged that the applicant – husband restricted the movement of the
deceased out of suspicion and was not allowing the deceased to talk
with anybody and also not permitting the deceased to visit her
Page 14 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
parental home, and if she was permitted, it was in present of the
applicant – husband. So far as other applicants, who the parents-
in-law of the deceased, the only allegation against them is with
regard to keeping suspicion. There is no an iota of averment and or
any instance as to what cruelty, save and except, above, was caused
by the applicants to the deceased and that none of the applicants
have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general
allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation
wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in
furtherance of the offence. Cruelty, as defined in Section 498A IPC
is: (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. The FIR in question reveals no such conduct and/or act
on the part of the applicants herein so as to attract the provisions of
Section 498A IPC. It is trite that small and scattered incidents
without any immediate proximity do not constitute offence of
cruelty. Even it is not the case of the de facto complainant that
there was any matrimonial discord between the husband and the
deceased wife;
c) so far as Section 306 IPC is concerned, as held by the Apex
Page 15 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
Court in the decision in Abhinav Mohan Delkar (supra) , even if
there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long
period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section
107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that
the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous
harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the
subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life. In the case on hand,
neither the FIR nor the papers of investigation reveals any such
proximate prior act to clearly find that suicide was the direct
consequence of the same. Even, the record reveals nothing but a
common general allegation to the effect that the deceased was not
permitted to talk with anybody or to visit her parental home alone;
d) in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC
452, it is held that 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;
e) as the ingredients of the substantive offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 306 IPC are not satisfied as referred to
herein above, Section 114 IPC would not apply;
f) the contents of the FIR itself, does not repose confidence so
far as allegations qua present applicants.
Page 16 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/19054/2014 (GJHC240481472014) JUDGMENT DATED:
02/09/2026
7.7 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
applicants.
8. In fine , the applications succeed and are allowed,
accordingly. FIR being C.R. No. I-114 of 2013 dated 01.06.2013,
registered with Vejalpur Police Station, Ahmedabad, District:
Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, is quashed and
set aside qua the present applicants only.
8.1 Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is
permitted.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/4tss2926
Page 17 of 17
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Sep 02 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 02 18:42:30 IST 2026