RAJESHKUMAR BACHUBHAI KHARADI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/23194/2015 (GJHC240509362015) JUDGMENT DATED:
07/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 23194 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJESHKUMAR BACHUBHAI KHARADI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR. HARDIK K RAVAL(6366) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
FRESH RULE SERVED(4513) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR K S CHANDRANI(6674) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. KM ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 07/09/2026

JUDGMENT
1. By way of this application, the petitioners have invoked
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.),
inter alia, seeking to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No.
I-31 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015 registered with Chithoda Police
Station, District: Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under
Sections 366, 376, 498, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Facts in a nutshell of the prosecution case are that
accused No. 1 stopped the complainant’s wife, Sejalben, on the
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:29 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/23194/2015 (GJHC240509362015) JUDGMENT DATED:
07/09/2026
road while she was carrying grass from the outskirts of Itavadi
village, threatened her with a knife, and despite knowing she is
the complainant’s wife, forcibly made her sit on his motorcycle
bearing registration number GJ-9-CM-1155 under threat to her
life, took her to his house, and committed rape against her, in
which accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 abetted the act; and accused
Nos. 5 and 6 aided one another by harboring accused No. 1 and
the victim at their government police quarters being Block
34/408, Firdosh Police Line, Amraiwadi to facilitate the offense,
thereby committing a crime and violating the notification issued
by the District Magistrate. Thus, on the said facts, FIR in
question came to be registered.
3. Heard learned advocate Dr. Hardik Rawal for the
petitioners. He would submit that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the
parents of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.4 is the brother of
petitioner No.1, and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the sister and
brother-in-law of petitioner No.1, respectively. It is submitted
that none of the petitioners has any role to play in the alleged
crime, inasmuch as respondent No.2 herein, who is the alleged
victim, had voluntarily left the house of respondent No.3 and is
presently staying with petitioner No.1 herein. It is submitted that
the so-called marriage was against the will and wish of the victim
and that she has also deposed on affidavit before this Court that,
due to her intimacy with petitioner No.1, she had decided to
marry him. However, her parents were not happy with the
marriage as petitioner No.1 belonged to a different caste.
4. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 had
voluntarily left her parental house as well as the house of
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:29 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/23194/2015 (GJHC240509362015) JUDGMENT DATED:
07/09/2026
respondent No.3 herein of her own free will and had married
petitioner No.1. It is submitted that she was neither abducted
nor kidnapped and had voluntarily left the said house of her own
free will. It is further submitted that neither petitioner No.1 had
committed rape upon her nor had he forced her to enter into any
physical relationship with him. It is also submitted that none of
the petitioners had threatened her and that the allegations made
in the FIR are false and baseless.
5. Learned advocate further submits that respondent No.3
has also remarried and is having children. It is submitted that
respondent No.3 is also in a relationship with another lady and
has two children from the said relationship. It is, therefore,
submitted that no useful purpose would be served by permitting
the present FIR to continue.
6. Though served, none appears for respondent No.3 herein,
who is the original complainant and is alleged to be the husband
of respondent No.2 herein.
7. Respondent No.2, the victim, is also present before this
Court. She has not denied the factum of having voluntarily filed
the affidavit and having made a statement that she had left her
matrimonial house of her own free will and without any threat or
coercion.
8. Learned APP submits that respondent No.3 is also living in
another relationship with another lady and is having two
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:29 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/23194/2015 (GJHC240509362015) JUDGMENT DATED:
07/09/2026
children from the said relationship.
9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the victim herself
is not ready and willing to stay with respondent No.3, who is her
husband. Respondent No.3 has also entered into a relationship
with another lady and has two children from the said
relationship. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be
served by continuing with the present FIR, more particularly
when the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Madhavrao J.
Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC
692 , has held that where the chances of conviction are bleak, no
useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal
proceedings. Considering the facts on hand, the victim has left
her house voluntarily.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case
for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 498, 506(2)
and 114 of the IPC is made out, as there is nothing on record to
point out the commission of the said offences by the petitioners.
11. Learned APP further submits that even as per the draft
charge-sheet, none of the offences punishable under Sections
366, 376 and 498 of the IPC has been invoked and that Section
506(2) of the IPC alone has been invoked. In view of the affidavit
filed by respondent No.2, the victim, no case under Section
506(2) of the IPC is made out.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:29 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/23194/2015 (GJHC240509362015) JUDGMENT DATED:
07/09/2026
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the
statement and affidavit of the victim, this Court is of the view
that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
13. In the result, the present application is allowed. The FIR
being C.R. No.I- 31 of 2015 registered with Chithoda Police
Station, District: Sabarkantha and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside.
13.1 Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:29 IST 2026