JAYESH CHIMANBHAI SOLANKI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 18944 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JAYESH CHIMANBHAI SOLANKI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NL RAMNANI(2400) for the petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
ROHAN N SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 15/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner, upon
instructions, would submit that petitioner no. 2, original accused
no. 2, that is father of present petitioner no. 1 Chimanbhai
Dhanjibhai Solanki, has expired. Thus, the petition qua Petitioner
No. 2 stands abated .
1.1 By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have
prayed to quash the FIR being I-CR No. 92 of 2019 lodged before
the Mahila Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under
Section 498A, 323, 504, 114 of the IPC read with Section 3 and
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The facts as narrated in the FIR are as follows:-
Complaint
Date: 24.08.2019
“My name is Sonalben. I am the wife of Jayeshbhai Chimanbhai Solanki and
the daughter of Dhansukhbhai Govindbhai Rathod. My age is 28 years. My
occupation is employment. My residential address is C/1/39, Bhatar
Tenament, near Shivam Hospital, Althan Road, Surat. My current residential
address is B/34, Jivkor Nagar, near Ashirwad Palace, opposite Poonam Nagar,
Bhatar Road, Surat. My mobile numbers are 9586376776 and 8866468546.
Upon being questioned in person, I state as follows:
I have been residing at the above-mentioned address with my daughter,
named Vriti, aged 6 years, my mother, and my brother for the last four years.
I earn my livelihood by working as a computer operator in the office of RV
Encon Pvt. Ltd. at Adajan, which has a contract with Gujarat Gas Company.
Today, I have come to the Women's Police Station to lodge my complaint in
person and state the facts of my complaint as follows:
On 01/05/2012, I was married to Jayeshbhai Chimanbhai Solanki, resident of
516, Mandir Faliya, opposite Maruti Darshan Apartment, College Road, Amroli,
Surat, at Surat, according to Hindu religious rites and rituals, in the presence
of relatives. After my marriage, I went to my matrimonial home to live in a
joint family with my husband, my mother-in-law, my father-in-law, my sister-
in-law Bhavanaben, and the two daughters of my younger sister-in-law,
Vibhabehn, namely Harnisha and Shivani. For the first six months of my
marriage, I was treated well. Thereafter, my mother-in-law, father-in-law, and
sister-in-law Bhavanaben quarrelling with me over minor matters relating to
household work and started harassing me by subjecting me to physical and
mental cruelty. I have four biological sisters-in-law and two stepsisters-in-law.
Among my biological sisters-in-law, the eldest is Harsha, wife of Deepakbhai;
the next younger sister-in-law is Kalpanaben, wife of Ashwinbhai Surti; the
next younger sister-in-law is Bhavanaben Chimanbhai Solanki; and the
youngest is Vibhabehn, wife of Bharatbhai Kanthariya. Initially, my biological
sister-in-law Bhavanaben used to argue and quarrel with me over trivial
matters, and I was required to live strictly according to her wishes. Whatever
my sister-in-law Bhavanaben said was followed in our household. During the
day, she would tell my husband Jayesh about everything that had happened,
and after listening to her, Jayesh would become enraged, abuse me, and
physically assault me. My biological and stepsisters-in-law would visit my
matrimonial home in turns and argue and quarrel with me. My father-in-law
and sisters-in-law would all act together and subject me to physical and
mental cruelty. We had to live under severe restrictions, and in an effort to
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
save my married life, I continued silently enduring the harassment inflicted by
all the members of my matrimonial family. On four occasions, I was expelled
from the house. I then went to my parental home. However, no one from my
matrimonial family would come to take me back. I would have to return on my
own initiative. At the time of my Shrimant ceremony (the traditional
pregnancy ceremony), my husband and my sister-in-law Bhavanaben
demanded a four-wheeler car from my mother, Minaben, as dowry. They told
me that the ceremony would be performed only if I brought money from my
parental home. My father had passed away when I was only three years old.
My mother raised and educated me and my siblings by doing household work.
She also arranged my marriage and the marriage of my younger sister,
Khushbuben. Therefore, my mother was not financially capable of providing
the money required to purchase a four-wheeler car and could not fulfil their
demand. However, at the time of my Shrimant ceremony, my mother gave
my husband ₹25,000 in cash, a 15-gram gold bracelet to my husband, and 10
grams of gold earrings to me. Despite this, my husband and sisters-in-law
taunted me, saying that these gifts were insufficient. When my daughter Vriti
was born during delivery, the harassment by my matrimonial family increased
further. Whenever I needed to purchase anything for myself or my daughter, I
had to ask my sister-in-law Bhavanaben because she controlled all the
household finances. Even when I asked her, my sister-in-law would not give
me money. Instead, she would tell me that I should ask my husband Jayesh
for it. When I went to Jayesh to ask for money, my husband would not give me
the amount necessary to meet my needs. Minor disputes and quarrels were
common in our household. Whenever we were in the kitchen, my father-in-law
would keep looking at us with an improper and lecherous gaze. During this
period, the quarrels in our household intensified. Therefore, the elders from
my parental family came to our home to counsel and reconcile the matter.
However, at that time, the members of my matrimonial family abused my
parental relatives, quarrelled with them, and drove them out of the house.
Despite this, I continued living there. My mother-in-law passed away in the
year 2015. After her death, whenever I wanted to visit my parental home, my
husband would not allow me to go. Thereafter, a birthday celebration for my
father-in-law, Chimanbhai, was arranged at the house of my sister-in-law
Vibhabehn. When I refused to accompany them, my husband and my sister-
in-law Bhavanaben quarrelled with me. As the quarrel escalated, members of
my parental family and my matrimonial family gathered for a meeting.
However, a quarrel broke out during that meeting as well. Consequently, I left
my matrimonial home with my daughter, wearing the clothes I had on at the
time, and went to my parental home. Since then, no one from my matrimonial
family has come to take me back. They have not even come to meet my
daughter, Vriti, and have not provided any financial assistance for her
expenses. Having become fed up with the harassment, I filed a maintenance
claim in the Family Court. Therefore, I have come today to lodge this
complaint. Thus, from six months after my marriage onwards, my husband,
father-in-law, and sisters-in-law acted together and demanded a four-wheeler
car as dowry. As their demand was not fulfilled, they abused me, physically
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
assaulted me, and subjected me to physical and mental cruelty, thereby
committing an offence. Therefore, I wish to lodge a formal legal complaint
against them. My witnesses are my mother, sister, brother, and any other
persons who may be identified during the police investigation.
The facts of my complaint, as recorded above in accordance with my
statement, are correct and true.”
3. Learned advocate Mr. N.L. Ramnani for the petitioner would
submit that the marriage was solemnized with petitioner no. 1
and opponent no. 2 herein on 1.5.2012 and one daughter is born
in the said wedlock.
3.1 It is further submitted that petitioner no. 1 is serving with a
private company and earning his livelihood, whereas petitioner
no. 2 is the father of petitioner no. 1, aged 80 years, whereas
petitioner no. 3 is a divorcee sister, petitioner no. 4 is a married
sister who has married since 28 years, whereas petitioner
number 5 is a married sister who has married since last 20 years,
whereas petitioner no. 6 is also a married sister who has married
since last 21 years.
3.2 Learned advocate would further submit that petitioner
number 3, who is a divorcee sister of petitioner no. 1, is
practicing advocate in Surat city, whereas petitioner nos. 4 to 6
are married sisters of petitioner no. 1 who are married since long
and are residing with their respective families at the address
shown in the cause title of the petition, and as such, except
festival or some family function, they do not visit the house of
petitioner no. 1.
3.3 Learned advocate would further submit that even as per
the case of the complainant in the FIR, somewhere in October
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
2015, opponent no. 2 – complainant went to her parental house
for staying there for some days, and ever since then she has not
returned to her matrimonial house and the present FIR is lodged
on 24.8.2019, almost after 4 years, with vague allegations
without there being any specific role attributed for any time,
place of the alleged offence to pressurize the present petitioners.
3.4 Learned advocate would further submit that the present
petitioner no. 1 had preferred an application under the provisions
of Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the minor
daughter by filing Civil Misc. petition no. 72 of 2017, wherein
th
interim order came to be passed on 13 June 2019, whereby the
Hon’ble court directed opponent no. 2 wife complainant herein to
allow the petitioner no. 1 to take with him the minor daughter on
every second and fourth Sunday of English calendar month
between 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM, pursuant to which, only with the
purpose to see that the petitioners are pressurized, the criminal
machinery was used by lodging the impugned FIR based on false,
concocted, and baseless allegations which do not repose
confidence, and thus, argued to allow the present petition.
3.5 Learned advocate would further submit that none of the
ingredients of the allegations leveled in the FIR are made out,
inasmuch as no specific averments with regards to time, date,
place of offence have been stated, and vague statements have
been made in the FIR, and thus, argued to allow the present
petition.
4. Though served none appears for the Respondent – Original
Complainant.
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
4.1 Per contra, learned APP Mr. Rohan H Shah would submit
that in view of the fact that an interim relief is operating in terms
of para 16(C), namely the entire investigation of the impugned
FIR has been stayed, under such circumstances, argued that
when a prima facie case is made out from the reading of the FIR,
this court should be loath in interfering at the stage of quashing
at the very nascent stage when the investigation reaches to be
completed, and thus argued to reject the present petition.
5. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties
and having gone through the impugned FIR, the question which
requires consideration is whether case is made out for offence
punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 114 of the IPC read
with Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
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,
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
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
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 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
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
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.
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
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
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, 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
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
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.”
5.3 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, 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
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
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 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
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
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 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.”
5.4 Considering the aforesaid principles, if the facts are tested,
the factual aspect would reveal that the marriage has taken place
on 1.5.2012, whereas the allegations in the FIR are vague
omnibus in nature without there being any specific role
attributed, except for the allegation against the husband that he
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/18944/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240643102019)
used to beat her; however, there are no allegations as to when,
where, and how such physical abuse was perpetrated upon the
complainant and such allegations are also with regards to other
petitioners.
5.2 Thus, even after lastly residing with the petitioners in the
th
year 2015, the complaint has been lodged on 24 of August 2019,
almost 4 years after she left the house. Be that as it may, the
allegations are vague, general in nature, against all the family
members of petitioner no. 1 - husband, and even against the
husband except for vague allegations, there is nothing on record
which would attract any of the provisions of Section 498A, 323,
504, 114 of the IPC, inasmuch as the husband having availed
remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act and having obtained
an order in his favor with regards to visitation rights, the present
FIR has been lodged, which is nothing but a counterblast and
pressure tactics adopted by complainant.
6. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands
allowed . The impugned FIR being I-CR No. 92 of 2019 lodged
before the Mahila Police Station, Surat for the offences
punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 114 of the IPC read
with Section 3 and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua
the present petitioners, stands quashed and set aside.
7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 15:40:58 IST 2026