TARUN KAMAL CHAUDHARY (ORIG.ACCUSED NO.1) vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3985 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
TARUN KAMAL CHAUDHARY (ORIG.ACCUSED NO.1) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NL RAMNANI(2400) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
A R ROCKEY(7592) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
KHUSHI P JADAV(7351) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
YUVRAJ BHRAMBHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 31/08/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The applicants before this Court are invoking Section 482 of
the CrPC to quash and set aside the FIR, being I-CR No. 2 of 2016,
for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506(2) and 114 of
the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, lodged
at the Mahila Police Station, Kutch (East).
2. The facts of the FIR are to the effect that:-
2.1 The complainant got married with the accused No.1 on
06.05.2011. There is no issue born out of said wed-lock. It is
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
further alleged that her father had given her dowry which
included Ford Figo car, jewellery worth 8 lacs, clothes worth 4
lacs, FDR of Rs.5 lacs and since her mother-in law and sister-in
law became greedy, all these people use to tell her to bring more
dowry and when she refused to do as they said, they used to
mentally and physically harass her. She narrated these facts to
her parents and her parents in turn said that by the passage of
time everything will be all right.
2.2 It is further alleged that she use to tolerate all these things
for the sake of saving her marriage. It is further alleged that after
marriage she and her husband went for honeymoon which was
also sponsored by her father. It is further alleged that her father
got opened a bank locker in her name and all her jewellery was
kept in the said locker and at present key of the said locker is
with her husband. It is also alleged that her husband and her
mother-in law use to pressurize herfor bringing more dowry and
they used to address her as mad and they made attempts to
prove that she is mad. It is further alleged that her sister-in law
and her husband has video graphed and they have prepared her
false C.D. with a view to prove her mad and also they have
obtained her signatures on a paper stating that I do not like my
husband and that writing is produced in the court in a divorce
petition filed by the husband.
2.3 It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that since these people
were harassing her and she could not bare the torture, she told
these things to her parents. It is further alleged that her husband,
mother-in law and husband of her sister-in law left her at her
father's office "Ramapir Travels" and they demanded
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Rs.500,000/- from her father and said that if he gives them the
amount then only they will take the complainant back to her
matrimonial house. It is also alleged that they threatened her
that if she discloses about the writing to anybody, she would be
killed. Since she was afraid of the accused persons, she did not
disclose about the writing to anybody and she started residing
with her parents.
2.4 It is further alleged that there after her father had
purchased one flat in her name as demanded by the accused
No.5 and 6 but despite this the accused No.1 did not take her
back and despite order passed in petition under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, on 16.04.2014, the accused No.1 did not
take her back to her matrimonial house. It is further alleged that
the accused No.5 and 6 said that she is mad and she is required
to undergo psychiatric treatment and then and then only she
shall be taken back to her matrimonial house. Upon this her
father got her checked with psychiatric doctor who has opined
that the complainant is completely fit and fine and despite this
the accused No.1 is not taking her back and therefore she has
filed the complaint against all the accused.
3. Learned advocate Mr. N.L. Ramani for the applicants
submits that even if the FIR is taken on the face of it, the
allegations are general in nature, false, and concocted only with a
view to harass and pressurize the applicants and to see that the
husband (applicant No. 1) surrenders to the terms of the father of
the complainant (Respondent No. 2).
3.1 It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 has misused the
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
police machinery by lodging the present FIR. The informant has
not mentioned specific dates in the entire FIR except for the date
of marriage and the passing of an order in HMP No. 219 of 2012,
whereby the application for restitution of conjugal rights came to
be allowed on 16.04.2014, which is nothing but a pressure tactic.
3.2 Learned advocate further submits that as per the
allegations in the FIR, the entire stay of the complainant is less
than two months. Inasmuch as Applicant No. 1 has already filed
HMP No. 21/2011, whereas the marriage was solemnized on
06.05.2011, and thus, the actual stay of the complainant was
only for a period of one month and ten days. Though HMP No.
21/2011 was withdrawn on a technical ground, a subsequent
divorce petition was also filed, though rejected by the concerned
Family Court, which is under challenge by way of First Appeal
before this Court, and thus, it is submitted that the allegations
levelled in the FIR are nothing but an afterthought with a view to
pressurize the applicant as well as his family members.
3.3 It is further submitted that Applicant No. 4 has been
residing at Mumbai since 2008 and prior to that was in Spain for
over five years. Applicants No. 5 and 6 got married in 1999, much
prior to the marriage of the applicant and the complainant. Thus,
Applicants No. 4 to 6 have never interfered with the family affairs
of Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, and the allegations
against them are false and concocted to rope them in as accused.
3.4 Learned advocate further submits that Respondent No. 2
and her family members have initiated numerous proceedings,
including Criminal Case No. 2419 of 2012 under Sections 507,
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
506(2), and 114 of the IPC against friends of Applicant No. 1;
Criminal Case No. 2876 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504, 506,
and 114 of the IPC, dragging Applicant No. 1 and advocate L.J.
Ramnani; Criminal Case No. 5538 of 2013 against sisters Rekha
and Riya and brother-in-law Kamal under Sections 406 and 420 of
the IPC; and Criminal Case No. 228 of 2012 against Applicant No.
1 and advocate L.J. Ramnani under Sections 504, 506(2), and 114
of the IPC.
3.5 Learned Advocate for the Applicant has pointed out various
other applications under Section 125 CrPC, Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, Execution Applications, and Contempt Applications
for not obeying the order passed in HMP No. 219 of 2012 for
restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act and Chapter Cases being 75/12, 366/13, 185/15 and
21/15 against the applicant/advocate and various family
members.
3.6 Thus, it is argued that despite having availed civil as well as
criminal remedies since the year 2012, Respondent No. 2 has
remained silent for almost four years and has come forward
almost five years from the date of the alleged separation and has
lodged the FIR belatedly, alleging offences under Sections 498,
506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, which are baseless, and has thus tried to rope in
all the family members.
3.6 Learned advocate further submits that the complainant and
her family members are in the habit of lodging various
proceedings and have only succeeded in the maintenance
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
application as well as the restitution of conjugal rights
application; however, the application under the Domestic
Violence Act also came to be quashed and set aside by this Court
vide order dated 28.10.2024 in Special Criminal Application No.
7226 of 2019 and has thus argued that lodging of the present FIR
is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and has thus argued
to allow the present petition.
4. Per contra learned Advocate Mr. Hardeep L Mahida for the
complainant would submit that:-
4.1 That though the FIR states the date of marriage as
06.05.2011, it is actually 26.04.2011, and would rely on the
memorandum of marriage issued under Section 5 of the Gujarat
Marriage Act of 2006, the photocopy of which is taken on record.
4.2 It is argued that the reason for the delay is that an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
restitution of conjugal rights was pending before the Family Court
and, vide order dated 16.04.2014, the Family Court had granted
restitution of conjugal rights; however, as the said order was not
complied with, the complainant filed the present FIR, and thus
there is a genuine reason for lodging the belated FIR.
4.3 It is argued that the FIR would clearly reveal that the
applicants herein were trying to prove that the complainant is
mentally unfit; however, it is submitted that, as per the medical
report of the Civil Hospital, Rajkot, there was no abnormality seen
in the brain MRI of the complainant and, therefore, the photocopy
of the report dated 02.01.2015 has been placed on record, which
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
is taken on record, and it is thus argued that she is not mentally
unstable. Thus, the allegations levelled in the FIR cannot be said
to be baseless and are factual in nature and arise from the
consequences that the complainant had to face during the short
span of marriage, and it is thus argued to reject the present
petition.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
since a prima facie case is made out from the reading of the FIR,
this Court should not enter into a mini-trial while exercising
power under Section 482 of the CrPC and thus argued to reject
the present petition.
6. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties. This
Court has gone through the averments made in the FIR. The
allegations made in the FIR are vague and general in nature. At
the outset, the judgment in the case of Dara Lakshmi
Narayana and Others v. State of Telangana and Another,
reported in 2024 INSC 953 is required to be considered,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 25 has
observed as follows:-
”25. 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. It is a
well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often
a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when
domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised
and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or
particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.
Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal
provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members…………………..”
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
6.1 Thus, a reading of the entire FIR would reveal that the wife
had stayed with the husband and her in-laws, namely, the
mother-in-law and sister-in-law, for a period of less than two
months, wherein allegations are levelled of demand of dowry to
the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs by the mother-in-law and the husband.
Since the marriage span is of only two months, it is unclear as to
when such demand was made, as the same is not specifically
averred in the FIR. No specific time, date or occasion has been
mentioned in the FIR; vague allegations dragging all the family
members are made. On the contrary, the factum of the husband
having filed for divorce in the month of June 2011 is not disputed
by the respondents herein. The factum of forcibly obtaining a
writing stating that the complainant does not like her husband is
also vague, inasmuch as no such writing is placed on record by
the complainant herein. The allegations of physical abuse and
mental abuse are general, omnibus and vague in nature. The
conduct of the complainant is also required to be noted,
inasmuch as, having lodged criminal cases way back in the year
2012, being Criminal Case Nos. 2419 of 2012, 2876 of 2012, 228
of 2012 and 5538 of 2013, the complainant could have very well
lodged the complaint alleging the present allegations in the FIR;
however, she has not done so, but has lodged the FIR after
passing of the order of restitution of conjugal rights, that too on
16.04.2014. Whereas the present complaint is lodged on
12.01.2016, the reason for belated lodging of the FIR is totally
silent. Column No. 8 in the FIR is also left blank.
6.2 Thus, no reasons have been stated for lodging the FIR
belatedly, though there is a settled principle of law that merely
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3985/2016 (GJHC240548672016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
lodging a belated FIR would not be a ground to quash the FIR.
However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, more particularly, having lodged various complaints,
including FIRs, culminating into criminal cases way back in the
year 2012 and 2013, as noted hereinabove, the complainant has
remained silent for all these years and has suddenly awakened
from a slumber in the year 2016 to lodge the present FIR, which
does not inspire confidence and contains vague, omnibus and
unsupported allegations without there being any specific
instances of demand of dowry or having inflicted any physical or
mental cruelty upon the complainant. Under the circumstances,
the FIR raises serious doubt about the allegations levelled against
the applicants and thus, if the proceedings are allowed to
continue, it would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
6.3 In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.
The impugned FIR, being I-CR No. 2 of 2016, for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and
sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, lodged at the
Mahila Police Station, Kutch (East), along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present applicants, stands
quashed and set aside.
7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Tue Sep 01 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 12:52:02 IST 2026