SAIYED SHAHBAZ SHAMSUDDIN vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1711 of 2015
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3200 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SAIYED SHAHBAZ SHAMSUDDIN & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MISS TABASSUM SAIYED(5902) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR EE SAIYED(725) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR CHETAN B RAVAL(2090) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 03/09/2026

COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners before this Court have invoked Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for inter alia praying to quash
and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.I-243 of 2014, dated
26.12.2014, lodged before the Danilimda Police Station, Ahmedabad
City, for offences alleged to have been committed between May –
2009 to 16.12.2014, punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR in nutshell are that the
daughter of the complainant came in contact with the petitioner No.1
in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3200 of 2015, and as
such both of them were in love with each other, both of them got
married on 31.10.2008. That in the year 2009 i.e. on 14.01.2009, one
Akram fired upon petitioner No.1 and her daughter and during this
firing, both the petitioner No.1 and daughter Mehjabin sustained
fire-are injuries and thereafter Mahjabin got paralyzed. That,
whenever the petitioner No.1 would come out from jail on parole
leave, the petitioners No.2 and 3 of Cr.M.A. No.3200 of 2015 and
petitioners of Cr.M.A. No.1711 of 2015 used to pass taunts and
harass her physically and mentally and they asked Mehjabin to give
divorce to petitioner No.1. That on 16.12.2014, at around 09:00 p.m.
as such Mehjabin was fed-up of the alleged harassment by the
petitioners, she injured herself by inflicting knife blows in her
stomach and on 21.12.2014, Mehjabin succumbed to the injuries.
3. Learned advocate Mr. EE Saiyed for the petitioners would
submit that petitioner No.1 in the Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.1711 of 2015 is the husband of petitioner No.2
Saiyed Suraiya Shahbaz, who is the sister of Mushtaq Alam Parmar
petitioner No.1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3200 of
2015, and that they are residing separately at Shah-e-alam after she
got married with petitioner No.1 namely Saiyed Shahbaz
Shamsuddin. That they are residing separately having no past family
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
antecedents and have nothing to do with allegations alleged against
the present petitioners, more particularly even Talaq. Inasmuch as,
the deceased - wife is separately residing after the marriage, as it
would be evident from the FIR lodged by the deceased herself
against her own mother and sister-in-law being C.R. No.1-306 of
2010, dated 17.12.2010, for offences punishable under Sections 323,
324, 498(B), 114 of the IPC read with Section 135(1) of the GP Act,
which clearly indicates that the deceased had a love affair with
petitioner No.1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3200 of
2015 and got married in the year 2008. That had also purchased a
property in her name which was given to her own mother and sister-
in-law, however, was not receiving any rent from them. Learned
advocate thus argued that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 of Cr.M.A.
No.1711 of 2015 have no role to play in the present crime as alleged
against them.
3.1. Learned advocate would further submit that petitioner No.1 in
Cr.M.A. No.3200 of 2015 is already undergoing sentence of life
imprisonment and would come on parole or furlough as and when
granted by the competent authority / court. And thus, also the
allegations qua the husband are baseless.
3.3. Learned advocate would also submit that petitioner Nos.2 and
3 in Cr.M.A. No.3200 of 2015 are sisters of petitioner No.1 and
sisters-in-law of the deceased have been wrongly roped, inasmuch as
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
petitioner No.3 Shaheenbanu is a widow and is residing separately at
Narol, whereas petitioner No.2 Shamshadbanu is married and is
residing in Jamalpur. And thus, the allegations levelled against the
present petitioners are also vague in nature, without attributing any
specific role, and is nothing but a counter blast against the FIR
lodged by her own daughter against the complainant and sister-in-
law of the deceased on 17.12.2010. And has thus argued to allow the
present petitions.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Dave for learned advocate Mr.
Chetan Raval for the complainant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt for the State would submit that a
prima facie case is made out from reading of the FIR. Serious
allegations of cruelty both mental as well as physical have been
levelled against the present petitioners, and that has argued that the
Court may not enter into weighing the evidence on record which
would amount to mini trial which is not permitted at the stage of
quashing, and have thus, argued to reject the present petitions.
5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. This Court
has gone through the papers of charge-sheet. This Court has also
gone through the FIR lodged by the deceased on 17.12.2010 against
the present complainant i.e. her own mother and her sister-in-law i.e.
daughter-in-law of the present complainant, namely Roshanbanu and
Najaranabanu, respectively. Which clearly indicates that while
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
petitioner No.1 in Cr.M.A. No.3200 of 2015 was used to come out
on parole, the deceased got in touch with him and fell in love and
ultimately got married in the year 2008. In the said FIR, it is clearly
stated that she is living separately at Jamalpur, and that her mother-
in-law and father-in-law are residing separately. In the said FIR also
it is evident that her husband is undergoing life imprisonment with
regards to a case of murder. She has clearly indicated in said FIR
that because of an incident of firing took place, she was injured and
that FIR is also lodged in that regards. The allegations against the
complainant and the sister-in-law by the deceased are also made in
the said FIR, that of giving her kick blows.
6. The factum of all the petitioners residing separately is not
disputed either by the State or by the complainant. The allegations
levelled in the FIR if are taken into considerations, are vague in
nature without there any being particular instances of cruelty being
meted out, more particularly, with regards to any dowry also. On the
contrary, if the dying declaration which is placed on record is taken
into consideration, there is nothing roping in the present petitioners,
more particularly, attracting provisions of Section 306 of the IPC.
7. The factum of deceased having committed suicide, if at all has
committed suicide cannot be attributed to the present petitioners
inasmuch as there is nothing on record to point out that there was
incessant harassment either physical or mental to the deceased that
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the deceased has no other option but to commit suicide. Mere
allegations of go die would also not amount to abetment.
8. 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
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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 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
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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 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
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate
steps in the larger interest of the society.”
9. 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 complaints are led in
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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 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
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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.
10. 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:
“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
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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
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)
11. Thus, applying the ratio as held by the Apex Court in the
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1711/2015 (GJHC240502382015) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
aforesaid judgments, and the allegations leveled in the FIR tested on
the aforesaid principle, would clearly fail to pass the test as applied
herein above, more particularly, the factum of having complained for
the first time with regards to the allegations of physical abuse by the
petitioners in the year 2014 right from the date of marriage in the
year 2008 does not repose confidence. Allegations are vague,
omnibus in nature without any particular date time or place of
incidents, arraigning each and every member of the family including
the husband who is undergoing sentence of murder and would come
out on parole or furlough. The deceased has never complained to
anyone, more particularly, the allegations levelled in the FIR lodged
against her own mother in the year 2010 speaks volumes. Thus, the
FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
12. In view of the above, the present petitions are succeed.
According, the FIR being C.R. No.I-243 of 2014, dated 26.12.2014,
lodged before the Danilimda Police Station, Ahmedabad City,
alongwith the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners of both petitions.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 07 13:42:26 IST 2026