ISHWARBHAI HALABHAI DESAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1737 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ISHWARBHAI HALABHAI DESAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAULIK N SHAH(5280) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 31/08/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate for the applicant , at the outset, hands
over a photocopy of the death certificate, wherein it is recorded
that applicant No.1, namely, Ishwarbhai Desai, expired on
13.07.2022. In view of the same, the present application stands
abated qua applicant No.1.
2. The lone applicant herein, namely, Pushpaben Ishwarbhai
Desai, is the mother-in-law of the victim, who had committed
suicide. The applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia,
seeking to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-8 of
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
2016 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad,
dated 25.01.2016, for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The facts stated in the FIR are to the effect that:
3.1 It is the case of the complainant in the F.I.R. the name of
the complainant is Kavitaben w/o Pravinbhai Ranchodbhai
Panchal and is resident of Shahibaug, Ahmedabad City.
3.2 It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the complainant has
two daughters and one son, namely Bhoomi aged 25 years
(herein referred as "deceased"), Disha aged 24 years and Mihir
aged 17 years respectively. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that
deceased had studied B.B.A. from GLS College, Ahmedabad and
had further studied International Marketing.
3.3 It is further stated in the F.I.R. that in the year 2011, the
deceased got wedded with one Hemil Hasmukhbhai Panchal as
per their rituals and after the wedding, the couple had shifted to
America and after about one year, the couple had got sour
relations and therefore, the couple got judicially separated and
since then after, the deceased stayed with the complainant. It is
further stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased was doing a private
job at the salary of Rs.28,000/-and in June July, the deceased
had left the job and then after joined another job. It is further
stated in the F.I.R. that in the month of December, 2014,
deceased became the winner of Radio Mirchi Contest, where
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
after, deceased came in contact with the accused no. 1 and then
after, the deceased along with the complainant went to Dubai
through Radio Mirchi from 08.01.2015 to 13.01.2015, where
deceased stayed in contact of the accused no. 1.
3.4 It is further stated in F.I.R. that when they came back to
Ahmedabad, the deceased and the accused no. 1 started talking
over the phone, after which the accused no. 1 had talked about
the marriage. Due to which the deceased had informed the
accused no. 1 that the deceased is divorcée. Since the accused
no. 1 did not had any problem, the accused no. 1 had proposed
for marriage.
3.5 It is further stated in F.I.R. that thereafter deceased and
the accused no. 1 use to meet each other and the accused no. I
use to visit residence of the complainant frequently and
thereafter the complainant thought fit of the accused no. 1 and
accepted the proposal of marriage of the deceased and the
accused no. 1.
3.6 It is further stated in F.I.R. that the accused no. I was put
to notice and as a condition precedent that deceased would do
the job even after marriage, to which the accused persons had
agreed and thereafter, the marriage of the accused no. 1 and the
deceased got solemnized on 24.11.2015 at Kumbhagarh,
Rajasthan.
3.7 It is further stated in F.I.R. that on 25.11.2015, the entire
family came back to Ahmedabad and thereafter deceased
Page 3 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
continued to live at her matrimonial home and use to visit
parental home frequently and at that point of time, deceased had
informed the complainant that the accused no. 1 had earlier
entered in an engagement with one girl, which was not disclosed
either by accused no. 1 or by the accused no. 2 and 3.
3.8 It is further stated in F.I.R. that after the marriage, the
accused no. 1 and deceased went to Maldives for Honeymoon for
a period of 7 days and after returning back to Ahmedabad, the
deceased went to the home of the complainant, where the
deceased was upset and on asking by complainant, deceased
informed the complainant that the accused no. 1 had demanded
to bring Rs. 25,00,000/- from parental father, to purchase a
property.
3.9 It is further stated in F.I.R. that when ever the deceased
visited house of the complainant, deceased would always remain
upset since the accused no. I was mentally and physically
harassing the deceased.
3.10 It is further stated in F.I.R. that the petitioner and the
deceased went to Bangkok on 13/01/2016 to celebrate the
birthday of the deceased and the day before going to Bangkok, it
is alleged that the accused no. I went to the home of the
complainant and asked Rs. 30,000/- from the husband of the
complainant, which were given by the husband of the
complainant.
3.11 It is further stated in F.I.R. that the couple returned back
Page 4 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
to Ahmedabad on 18.01.2016 and the deceased went to the
home of the complainant on 20.01.2016. It is further stated that
on 20.01.2016, the deceased, complainant and her daughter
went to Maninagar where the deceased was found to be talking
on phone on high voice asking as to what more amount is
required.
3.12 It is further stated in F.I.R. that the complainant saw black
marks on the fore arms of the deceased, hence the complainant
asked the deceased qua those marks, upon which the deceased
replied the complainant that the accused no. I had beaten her
and also beaten her while they were at Bangkok, and whole
night the deceased had cried.
3.13 It is further stated in F.I.R. that at about 11 pm, the
complainant had received a phone call from the accused no. 2
inter alia informing the complainant to make understand the
deceased not to message and thereby harass the accused no. 1
since the accused no. 1 was in mid of one event. It is further
stated that then after deceased had called the accused no. 1 and
told the accused no. 1 as to why the accused no. 2 called the
complainant and in the meantime, complainant took the phone
and informed all to calm down and further informed that all may
meet on the next day and further took away the phone of the
deceased.
3.14 It is further stated in F.I.R. that on asking the deceased,
deceased informed the complainant, the accused no. 1 would
taunt the deceased for money and further use to comment qua
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
the earlier marriage of the deceased and would not listen to the
deceased and also not giving time to the deceased. Further the
deceased had informed to the accused no. 1 that the deceased
wanted to do the job which was denied by the accused no. 1 and
pressurized the deceased for not doing the same, and later had
dragged deceased out of the home saying that the deceased must
bring Rs. 25,00,000/-, otherwise not to return back.
3.15 It is further stated in F.I.R. that on 21.01.2016, deceased
had left her parental home informing the complainant that
deceased was going for car service and around 2:15 - 2:30 pm,
the complainant had received a phone call from one Mitesh Soni,
who had informed the complainant that the deceased had died at
Sachin Tower and under the aforesaid allegations, the F.I.R.
came to be registered.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Jay M. Thakkar for the applicant
would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in
the alleged offence. She is neither directly nor indirectly
connected with the allegations levelled in the FIR. Learned
advocate would further submit that the period of the alleged
offence is stated to be from 24.11.2015 to 21.01.2016, whereas
the FIR came to be lodged on 25.01.2016. It is submitted that
the said circumstance clearly reflects that the FIR came to be
lodged after due deliberation and after unnecessarily roping in
the present applicant, despite there being no fault attributable to
her.
5. Learned advocate further submits that even if the
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
allegations levelled in the FIR are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, the same would not fall within the four
corners of Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 7
of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned advocate further submits
that the only allegation qua the present applicant, who is the
mother-in-law of the deceased, is that the deceased had asked
the present applicant as to why she was not scolding the
husband of the deceased, namely, the son of the present
applicant, for his conduct towards the deceased. In response
thereto, it is alleged in the FIR that the present applicant replied
that, being a female member, she had also suffered and that the
deceased should also suffer a little bit.
5.1 Learned advocate would submit that, except for the
aforesaid allegation, there is nothing in the FIR except baseless
and vague allegations against the present applicant and,
therefore, has argued that the present application may be
allowed.
6. Learned advocate would further submit that there is no
overt act attributable to the present applicant and, therefore, the
question of abetment does not arise. It is further submitted that
there are no allegations to suggest that the present applicant
had facilitated the commission of suicide and, therefore, the
ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are not attracted.
7. Learned advocate would further submit that even on a bare
perusal of the FIR, the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC are
not attracted, as there are no allegations of harassment meted
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
out to the deceased with a view to coercing her or her relatives to
meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, or
on account of failure to meet such demand. It is further
submitted that there is no provocation, overt act, instigation or
continuous conduct attributable to the present applicant which
could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. Under such
circumstances, learned advocate would submit that the
ingredients of Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC are not
attracted and, therefore, the present application may be allowed.
8. Learned advocate would further submit that although the
deceased committed suicide within seven years of the marriage,
which would attract Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act,
such presumption would arise only when the deceased was
subjected to cruelty by the applicant or when there is prima
facie material indicating the complicity of the present applicant
so as to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC. In the
absence of such foundational facts, the presumption under
Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act would also not arise.
9. Learned advocate would further submit that the marriage
had taken place on 23.11.2015 and thereafter, the deceased and
the applicant had travelled to Maldives from 23.11.2015 to
07.12.2015, to Udaipur from 14.12.2015 to 16.12.2015, and to
Bangkok from 13.01.2016 to 17.01.2016. However, the
unfortunate incident of the deceased committing suicide took
place on 21.01.2016. Thus, it is argued that the applicant had
lived with the deceased for hardly a period of about one month
and, therefore, there is no proximity between the alleged acts
Page 8 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
attributed to the applicant and the act of the deceased
committing suicide. Learned advocate, therefore, submits that
the present application may be allowed.
10. Learned advocate would further submit that the husband
of the deceased, who was tried in Sessions Case No. 113 of 2018,
came to be acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment
and order dated 29.04.2026, by extending the benefit of doubt. It
is, therefore, submitted that, in view of the said judgment and
the evidence on record, there is no possibility of conviction of the
present applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased.
Learned advocate, therefore, would submit that the present
application may be allowed.
11. Learned advocate would further submit that the alleged
incident of suicide took place neither at the matrimonial home
nor at the parental home, but at a different place. It is, therefore,
submitted that, for the reasons best known to the family
members of the deceased, the present applicant has been roped
in without any fault attributable to her.
12. Though the matter was called out in the first half, learned
advocate Mr. Maulik Shah for Respondent No.2 was not present.
Even when the matter was called out for the second time, he
remained absent.
13. Learned APP Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt would submit that
since the trial qua the husband has proceeded and culminated
in acquittal, and the charge-sheet has also been filed, whereas
Page 9 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
applicant No.1, Ishwarbhai Desai, has also expired, no useful
purpose would be served in requiring the present applicant to
face the trial. Learned APP, therefore, fairly submits that the
present application may be considered accordingly.
14. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
15. This Court has gone through the contents of the FIR as
well as the papers of the charge-sheet appended along with the
petition. This Court has also perused the proceedings of
Sessions Case No. 113 of 2018, which culminated in the
acquittal of the husband, namely, Krunal Ishwarbhai Desai. As
applicant No.1, Krunal Ishwarbhai Desai, has also expired, the
proceedings stand abated qua him. Thus, the only surviving
accused is applicant No.2, Pushpaben Desai, the mother-in-law
of the deceased.
16. Having gone through the contents of the FIR and the
papers of the charge-sheet, so far as the allegations levelled
against the present applicant, i.e. the mother-in-law of the
deceased, are concerned, the only allegation in the FIR is to the
effect that although original accused No.1, Krunal Ishwarbhai
Desai, the husband of the deceased, used to harass the deceased
by making demands for dowry, the present applicant, being his
mother, did not condemn or restrain her son from such conduct.
17. The other allegation qua the present applicant is that when
the deceased questioned her as to why she was not scolding her
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
son, original accused No.1, Krunal Desai, for his conduct
towards the deceased, the present applicant allegedly replied
that she was also a female member and had similarly suffered in
the past and that the deceased should also suffer in a similar
manner. Except for the aforesaid allegations, there is nothing in
the FIR or the papers of the charge-sheet to attract the
provisions of Sections 498-A or 306 of the IPC or Sections 3 and
7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
18. The allegations are vague and general in nature. There are
no specific instances, dates, times or places mentioned with
regard to the alleged acts, and the FIR is conspicuously silent on
these aspects. There is no specific allegation of any demand for
dowry against the present applicant, nor is there any direct overt
act or any act of physical or mental cruelty attributed to her.
This, coupled with the fact that, even otherwise, the husband of
the deceased has been acquitted by extending the benefit of
doubt in Sessions Case No. 113 of 2018 vide judgment and order
dated 29.04.2026, assumes significance.
19. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana
v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 , the
Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section
498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act . It noted that the allegations lacked specific instances of
cruelty or dowry demands, and merely naming family members
without concrete evidence amounts to abuse of legal process.
Page 11 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
The Court said that "a mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
without specific allegations indicating their active involvement
should be nipped in the bud". The Court emphasised that such
misuse of Section 498A to harass the husband and his family
must be curbed, and held that the High Court erred in not
quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court
further said that the "inclusion of Section 498-A of the IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift
intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have
been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing
tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A of the IPC as a
tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and
his family by a wife."
19.1 In Archin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2025) 3 SCC 756 ,
the Supreme Court held that Section 498A IPC should not be
applied mechanically. The Court observed that minor marital
issues were often exaggerated by the wife's family which lead to
misuse of police machinery to harass the husband. The Court
stated that, "many times, the parents including the close
relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of
salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to
save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on
account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/1737/2017 (GJHC240612622017) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on
trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife,
her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the
panacea of all evil". The Court further emphasized that such
actions amounted to the abuse of the legal process and that the
High Court should have quashed the proceedings under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court also directed the legislature to
amend the provisions to address the pragmatic realities.
20. In the result, the present application is allowed. The FIR
being C.R. No. I-8 of 2016 registered with Anandnagar Police
Station, Ahmedabad, and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute.
Direct service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 13 of 13
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 18:48:47 IST 2026