MOHAMMAD YUNUS ALENNABI PATHAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5709 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6805 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MOHAMMAD YUNUS ALENNABI PATHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JA ADESHRA(107) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA(3982) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ROHAN N SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 22/10/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners are
approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the
impugned FIR being CR No. I-29/2016 at Kim Police Station,
District Surat on 01.09.2016 in respect of alleged incident for the
period between 11.10.2015 to 23.01.2016 against the present
petitioners for the offences punishable under Section
498A,323,504,506(2) and 114 of the IPC read with Section 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 5709 of 2018 filed by
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
Mohammad Yunus Alennabi Pathan (the husband) and Special
Criminal Application No. 6805 of 2016 is filed by Petitioner No. 1
is the father-in-law, petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law,
petitioner No. 3 is the sister-in-law, and petitioner No. 4 is the
elder brother of the father-in-law.
3. The translated version of the FIR reads as follows:-
“My name is Madinaben, wife of Mohammad Yunus Alenbi Pathan and
daughter of Hasumati Ali Alirazak Pathan, aged 26 years.My residential
addresses are as follows: Present address: Ajmeri Nagar, opposite the
mosque, Kadodara Road, Kim, Taluka Olpad, District Surat. Another
address: Single Faliyu, Sultan Ali Ni Chali, Godhra, Taluka and District
Godhra. Native place: Taluka Bhargan, Taluka Fatehaliyana,
Dariyaganj, District Kashiramnagar, Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). Mobile
Number: 98252 81996
On 31-08-2016, at approximately 4:15 p.m., I received a telephone call
on my mobile number 98252 81996 from Kim Police Station. The caller
informed me as follows:
"On 31-07-2016, you had submitted an application at Kim Police Station
under Application No. 2/2016, Appendix No. 01. Pursuant to that
application, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Surat Division, Surat,
has granted permission to register an offence under Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), etc. Accordingly, your complaint under Section
498-A of the IPC, etc., is to be recorded. Therefore, please come to Kim
Police Station and lodge your complaint.”
Upon receiving this telephone call, I have personally come to Kim Police
Station today and state the facts of my complaint as follows:
At present, I reside at Kim at the above-mentioned address with my
mother, named Nagmaben, my younger brother, Rizwanbhai, aged 19
years, and my younger sister, named Naziyaben, aged 16 years. My
younger sister, Yasminben, was married on 04-10-2016 to Amirbhai, son
of Tvarimabhai Pathan, who resides at Navsari. She is presently residing
at Navsari with her husband. My father, Asmat Ali, passed away in
January 2015 due to cancer. During my father's lifetime, my engagement
Page 2 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
had been arranged with Mohammad Yunus, son of Alenbi Gulabhusen,
alias Asgar Ali Pathan, who is the husband of my mother's elder sister,
Shehnaz. Approximately one month after my father's death, on 17-02-
2015, I married Mohammad Yunus according to our Muslim customs and
traditions. I do not have any children at present. At the time of my
marriage, my mother, with her consent and for my happiness, gave me
the savings that my father had accumulated during his lifetime for my
marriage. These savings were given in accordance with our customs and
traditions as dowry and marriage-related gifts, as detailed below:
1. A sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) in cash was given
to my husband.
2. Three mobile phones valued at Rs. 18,000/- were given.
3. Furniture and utensils for the use of my husband and me were
given, having a total value of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
4. According to the customs and traditions of our Muslim community
in Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), when the groom comes to the bride's
house for the marriage, a ritual known as the "Valaiya" ceremony
is performed. During this Valaiya ceremony, the following items
and amounts were given:
Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash to my husband.
Rs. 21,000/- in cash for purchasing new clothes for my
husband.
Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash for purchasing clothes for my
husband's relatives.
One gold ring and one gold chain for my husband.
One gold chain for my mother-in-law.
Six gold bangles for my personal use and wear.
Two gold earrings.
Two gold rings.
Two pairs of gold earrings known as jumkha.
All these articles were taken to Godhra on the day of my marriage, after
the marriage ceremony, by me and members of my matrimonial family.
On the day following my marriage, my mother, Nagmaben, was observing
Iddat. Therefore, with the consent of my husband and my matrimonial
family, I came with my husband to my parental home at Kim to stay with
my mother. My mother's period of Iddat ended in May 2015. Thereafter,
my mother and I telephoned my husband, mother-in-law, and father-in-
law and asked them to come and take me back. However, they did not
come. Subsequently, my younger sister Yasmin's marriage was arranged
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
in June 2015, and her marriage was performed on 04-10-2015. During
the period from May 2015 to 04-10-2015, my mother-in-law, father-in-
law, and husband used to visit Kim to meet my mother. On those
occasions, my mother and I would ask them to take me back to my
matrimonial home. They would say that Mohammad Yunus was presently
residing in a rented house at Gandhinagar and intended to purchase a
house of his own. They said that they first needed to arrange the
necessary money and that, once the money had been arranged and a new
house purchased, they would take Madina to live in the new house. Since
my sister Yasmin's marriage was scheduled for 04-10-2015, I, along with
our acquaintance, Gathilaben Ansari, went to my matrimonial home at
Godhra on 01-10-2015 to invite them to the wedding. After inviting them,
we returned to Kim. However, neither my mother-in-law, father-in-law,
husband, nor any other member of my matrimonial family attended my
sister Yasmin's wedding. Yasmin's marriage had been arranged in June
2015, and my husband had not come to take me back even by October
2015. Therefore, my mother and I telephoned them, informed them that
my sister's wedding would take place on 04-10-2015, and told them that,
as it was my sister's wedding, they should not come to take me away until
the wedding had been completed. After Yasmin's marriage, on 11-10-
2015, my husband came alone to Kim and took me with him to his rented
house at Gandhinagar. Initially, both of us lived together as husband and
wife in a happy marital relationship. My husband was residing in a single
rented room situated on the rooftop portion of the building. The room
measured approximately 8 feet by 10 feet. Approximately eight days after
I went to Gandhinagar, my husband suddenly began taunting and
insulting me. He would say: "You have not brought anything from your
parental home, and I have to live with you in a rented house. If you bring
Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) in cash from your mother, I will
purchase a house." I told him that all the savings my father had
accumulated for my marriage had already been given to him at the time
of our marriage, both in cash and in the form of gold ornaments, as
dowry. I further told him that I did not have any cash left with me.
Thereupon, he said that my father owned a house in Vadodara and that I
should ask my mother to transfer that house into his name. I replied that
the house had been retained for the marriage expenses of my brother,
Rizwan, and my sister, Nazia. Upon hearing this, my husband became
extremely angry, slapped me twice, and began saying: "If you do not
bring Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash or get the house in Vadodara transferred
into my name, I will divorce you by giving you talaq." He also abused me
using obscene and insulting language directed at my mother and sister
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
and threatened to kill me. I telephoned my mother and informed her
about this incident. She reassured me by saying that everything would be
all right and advised me to remain calm. Thereafter, I continued to reside
with my husband at Gandhinagar for approximately three months.
During January, my mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law,
named Sayrabanou, alias Guddi, visited Gandhinagar approximately
three times. I also told these three people about my husband's demand for
Rs. 10,00,000/- and his demand that the house owned by my father in
Vadodara be transferred into his name. All three of them said: "What is
wrong with that? Mohammad Yunus is talking about purchasing a new
house for your happiness." They insisted that I bring Rs. 10,00,000/- from
my mother. They further threatened me, saying: "If you do not give us Rs.
10,00,000/- or the house in Vadodara, we will get you divorced and
arrange another marriage for Mohammad Yunus." I told them that my
mother did not have that much money, that the house in Vadodara was
meant for the marriage expenses of my brothers and sisters, and that my
father was no longer alive. Upon hearing this, my mother-in-law, father-
in-law, and sister-in-law became extremely angry, abused me using
obscene and insulting language directed at my mother and sister, and
said: "If you do not fulfil our demand, we will arrange another marriage
for Mohammad Yunus and make his second wife fulfil our demand." They
repeatedly made such statements to me and subjected me to mental and
physical harassment. As a result, I became extremely distressed and
mentally disturbed. I repeatedly informed my mother over the telephone
about the demands made by my husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law,
and sister-in-law. 4. Further Harassment at Godhra. Thereafter, on 14-
01-2016, my mother-in-law and father-in-law came to Gandhinagar and
took me with them to their home at Godhra. My mother had arranged the
death anniversary observance of my father at Kim on 21-01-2016. In this
regard, she had telephoned me and my mother-in-law and father-in-law
to invite us to attend the observance. Even after I arrived at Godhra, my
mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law continued to harass me
mentally and physically regarding their demand for Rs. 10,00,000/- or
the house in Vadodara. My sister-in-law and mother-in-law would beat
me. My elder father-in-law, named Sagar Ali Gulamhusen, alias Asgar
Ali Pathan, also tortured me over the issue of money. I used to inform my
mother over the telephone about all these incidents. I was receiving
excessive harassment from my matrimonial family and, being fed up with
it, I told them that I would lodge a police complaint against them. At that
time, my elder father-in-law, who is an advocate practising at Godhra,
told me: "I am an advocate. You will not be able to do anything against
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
us. I have considerable influence in the Godhra Police. I will implicate
you in any false case." He also threatened me and abused me using
obscene and insulting language directed at my mother and sister.
Thereafter, on 18-01-2016, my mother-in-law and father-in-law expelled
me from their home at Godhra, allowing me to take only two sets of
clothes with me.
They told me: "Go to your parental home and come back only if you
bring Rs. 10,00,000/-. Otherwise, we will kill you." At that time, my elder
father-in-law, Sagar Ali Gulamhusen, alias Asgar Ali Pathan, supported
my mother-in-law and father-in-law and told them: "Throw her out of the
house. If she does not give Rs. 10,00,000/-, do not allow her to enter the
house." Against my wishes, I was forcibly expelled from the house and
left alone. I then travelled by train to Kim and went to my mother's home.
I informed my mother of all the facts concerning the incidents that had
taken place. Since then, I have been residing at my mother's home. My
father's death anniversary observance was held on 21-01-2016. However,
neither my husband, nor my mother-in-law, nor my father-in-law, nor any
other member of my matrimonial family attended the observance.
Thereafter, on 22-01-2016, I received telephone calls from my father-in-
law and mother-in-law. They told me that they would come to Kim the
following day, 23-01-2016, to take me back with them. I informed them
that my aunt, named Nasimben Umid Alam Pathan, who resides in
Vadodara, was seriously ill and had been admitted to the Intensive Care
Unit (ICU) of Satyam Hospital in the Wadi area of Vadodara. I told them
that my mother and I were going to Vadodara on 23-01-2016 to visit my
aunt and enquire about her health. Therefore, I asked them to come and
take me back after two days. Upon hearing this, they disconnected the
telephone call. On 23-01-2016, my mother and I travelled by train to
Vadodara to enquire about my aunt's health. Before leaving, we went to
the home of our acquaintance, Akilaben Ansari, and informed her that we
were going to Vadodara because one of our relatives was seriously ill
and had been admitted to the ICU. We also told her that Nazia would be
alone at home and requested her to look after Nazia. My mother and I left
Kim at approximately 11:00 a.m. At approximately 12:30 p.m., my
husband telephoned me and said: "My parents, my sister Sayrabanou,
alias Guddi, and I have come to your home at Kim. Where are you?" I
informed him that I had gone to Vadodara to enquire about my aunt's
health. I then told him: "All of you may sit comfortably at the house. My
mother and I will return to Kim from Vadodara as soon as possible."
After this, my husband disconnected the call. My mother and I returned
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
from Vadodara to Kim by train. When we reached our home, we saw that
my husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law had arrived
in a four-wheeled vehicle and were sitting inside the vehicle outside our
house. We asked them why they were sitting outside. However, they did
not give us any answer. Therefore, my mother and I took them inside our
house. Once inside, my husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-
law, and the others again demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- or the house in
Vadodara. My mother folded her hands before them and said: "We do not
have such a large amount of money." Upon hearing this, all of them
collectively abused my mother in obscene and insulting language and
threatened that, if the money was not given, they would divorce Madina
and kill her. They also threatened to kill my mother. When my mother told
them not to speak in such a manner, my mother-in-law and sister-in-law
slapped my mother twice. When I intervened, my husband and mother-in-
law also beat me. My father-in-law became extremely angry, abused both
my mother and me using obscene and insulting language directed at our
mothers and sisters, and began saying: "We are going to divorce Madina.
My brother, Sagar Ali, is an advocate. Through him, we will get Madina
divorced." Saying that they were leaving, all four of them proceeded
towards the door of our house. As they were leaving, they threatened my
mother and me, saying: "Send her only after taking Rs. 10,00,000/- from
your side. Otherwise, we will burn both of you alive." After making these
threats, they left. At that time, my younger sister Nazia, our acquaintance
Akilaben, wife of Shakeel Ahmed Ansari, and Savitaben, wife of Rajubhai
Somabhai Patel, who works at our house, were present inside the house.
The time was approximately 6:30 p.m. Thereafter, on 15-07-2016, my
husband sent a typed letter in the Gujarati language to our address at
Kim from Gandhinagar, enclosed in an envelope and sent through R.P.O.
(RPAD) My mother signed the acknowledgement receipt confirming
receipt of the letter. I have studied up to Standard 12 and am able to read
Gujarati. I read the letter and found that my husband had written about
his demand for dowry and had threatened to marry another woman if the
dowry was not given. At the end of the letter, my husband had signed his
name in English. I am familiar with and can identify my husband's
signature. From the time of my marriage until 23-01-2016, my husband,
mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, and elder father-in-law
subjected me to mental and physical harassment. At the instigation of my
sister-in-law and my elder father-in-law, Sagar Ali, these people
demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- or the house owned by my father in Vadodara.
Because I did not fulfil their demands, they beat me and threatened to kill
me. As a result of this harassment, both my mother and I became
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
mentally distressed. On 15-07-2016, my husband sent me a letter
containing his demand for dowry and threats that he would marry
another woman if the dowry was not provided. Being fed up with these
incidents, my mother and I submitted an application against my
matrimonial family at Kim Police Station on 31-07-2016. I hereby lodge
my lawful complaint against the following persons, who jointly demanded
Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry or demanded that the house owned by my father
in Vadodara be transferred to them, subjected me to mental and physical
harassment, abused both my mother and me in obscene and insulting
language directed at our mothers and sisters, beat us, and repeatedly
threatened to kill us if we did not fulfil their demands.
Accused No. 1: My Husband
Name: Mohammad Yunus Alenbi Pathan
Age: 28 years
Present address: House No. 727, Adarsh Nagar Society, Pilla Thadda,
Sector 24, Gandhinagar.
Native address: Single Faliyu, Sultan Ali Ni Chali, Godhra, Taluka and
District Godhra.
Accused No. 2: My Father-in-Law
Name: Alenbi Gulamhusen, alias Asgar Ali Pathan
Age: 54 years
Address: Single Faliyu, Sultan Ali Ni Chali, Godhra, Taluka and District
Godhra.
Accused No. 3: My Mother-in-Law
Name: Shehnazben, wife of Alenbi Gulamhusen, alias Asgar Ali Pathan
Age: The age is recorded unclearly in the original document.
Address: Single Faliyu, Sultan Ali Ni Chali, Godhra, Taluka and District
Godhra.
Accused No. 4: My Sister-in-Law
Name: Shairaben, alias Guddi, wife of Abrarkhan Haji Abdul Latif
Pathan
Age: 32 years
Address: C-48, Madani Park, Karodia Road, Gorwa, Vadodara City,
Vadodara.
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
Accused No. 5: My Elder Father-in-Law
Name: Sagar Ali Gulamhusen, alias Asgar Ali Pathan
Age: 61 years
Address: Near Machhi Bangla, Commerce College Road, Godhra,
District Godhra.
All the above-mentioned persons jointly demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- as
dowry from me or demanded the house owned by my father in Vadodara.
They subjected me to mental and physical harassment, abused both my
mother and me in obscene and insulting language directed at our
mothers and sisters, beat us, and repeatedly threatened to kill us if I did
not give them Rs. 10,00,000/- or the house in Vadodara owned by my
father. Therefore, I request that lawful action be taken against all the
above-mentioned persons. The witnesses to my complaint are those
whose names I may provide in my complaint and any other witnesses or
evidence that may emerge during the police investigation. The above is
the statement of facts constituting my complaint. As narrated by me, the
facts of my complaint have been typed in the Gujarati language on a
laptop at Kim Police Station, and a printed copy has been taken. The
printed complaint was read over to me. I have read and understood its
contents and found them to be correct and true. I therefore sign below.
This is the statement of facts constituting my complaint.”
4. Learned advocate Mr. J. A. Adeshra for the petitioners would
submit that:-
4.1 The FIR lodged by the complainant with an oblique and
ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the petitioners and create
pressure.
4.2 Upon a bare reading of the entire FIR, none of the
ingredients of the alleged offenses are made out. Neither the
applicant- husband nor the petitioners ever demanded dowry or
subjected the complainant to mental cruelty. The allegations
leveled against the present applicant and petitioners in the FIR
are entirely baseless, false, and frivolous.
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
4.3 There is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, rendering
the allegations highly improbable. The FIR was lodged with mala
fide intentions to wreak vengeance, humiliate the petitioners, and
create coercive pressure for ulterior motives.
4.4 The allegations leveled against the present applicant-
husband and petitioners are completely vague and devoid of
merit.
4.5 The husband/applicant has already given talaq to the
complainant on 09.07.2016. The complainant has already
remarried Sohail Shakil Pathan on 14.05.2017. That the
complainant left her matrimonial home on 18.01.2016 and
started residing at her parental home at Village Kim, Taluka
Olpad, District Surat.
4.6 From the date of marriage until leaving her matrimonial
home, the complainant never preferred any application,
complaint, or FIR against the applicant- husband, or any family
members.
th
4.7 The alleged incident pertains to the period between 11
rd
October, 2015 to 23 January 2016, whereas the application was
st
given to Police on 31 July 2016, pursuant to which the FIR came
to be lodged on 01.09.2016 at Kim Police Station. Thus, there is
an unexplained delay of almost 7 months in lodging the FIR after
due deliberation and legal advice too see that all the Family
members of the Petitioner husband have been roped in by
making averments that are not true.
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
4.8 After marriage, the complainant stayed with the applicant
husband at Gandhinagar, whereas the father-in-law, mother-in-
law, sister-in-law, and uncle-in-law resided at Godhra (the
distance between kim and Godhra is about 225 km approx), and
the sister-in-law resided with her family at Vadodara (the distance
between kim and Vadodara is 150 km approx).
4.9 That even the application 29.07.2016 (registered on 31st
July 2016) addressed by the complainant to the PSI, Kim Police
Station, is materially in contradiction with the averments made in
th st
the FIR. The application dated 29 July 2016 (lodged on 31 July
2017) states that on the very next day of marriage she was
th
kicked out of the house (specifically on 18 February 2015, where
she was beaten and driven away), whereas the FIR remains
totally silent on this aspect.
4.10. On the contrary, the FIR is completely silent on this,
whereas records show the applicant- husband and complainant
traveled together from Vadodara to Ajmer by train on 21.02.2015,
from Ajmer to Abu on 24.02.2015, and from Abu Road to
Vadodara on 27.02.2015, for which the advocate relies upon
Annexure-D collectively which is copies of the said train bookings.
4.11 Learned advocate would further submit that due to the
treatment of the father of the complainant for cancer, their
financial position had become very bad and that the marriage of
the applicant was solemnized after the death of the father of the
complainant and quite contrary to the earlier stand, the
complainant has alleged that lakhs of rupees in cash and gold
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
ornaments were given to the applicant and his mother during
marriage, which stand is total contrary to what has been stated in
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 143 of 2016 and
application under Section 125 of the CrPC.
4.12 Learned advocate would further submit that in fact, looking
to the bad financial position of the complainant and her family
members, the complainant or her family members have not given
anything to the applicant as alleged at the time of marriage. On
the contrary, the father of the applicant has rendered financial
help for the treatment of the complainant's father, as they were
closely related and that neither applicant nor the petitioners,
have ever demanded a single rupee from the complainant or her
family members at any point of time.
4.13 Learned advocate would further submit that in fact, the
marriage of complainant has been solemnized with applicant-
husband against her wish and will, and therefore, she has never
bothered to reside at her matrimonial home, which would be
evident that she left her matrimonial house on 18-1-2016, barely
within 7 months of the marriage, without there being any reasons
or rhyme.
4.14 Learned advocate would further submit that even as per the
allegations leveled in the FIR are not correct, inasmuch as
according to the complainant, the applicant, his parents, and his
sister had gone to Kim on 23-7-2016, and at about 6:30 PM, they
had demanded money, abused the complainant and her mother,
and had also beaten them and threatened them. However, the
sister of the applicant is residing with her family at Vadodara,
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
which would be evident from the call details produced by the IO
by report dated 16-10-2016. That on 23-7-2016, the applicant
and parents had gone to Kim to persuade the complainant to
return to her matrimonial home; however, they came to learn
that the complainant and her mother had gone to Vadodara and
as the complainant and her mother were not present at Kim, the
applicant and his parents had returned to Godhra.
4.15 That on 23-7-2016 at about 6:30 PM, the applicant and his
parents were not even present at Kim, nor any incident took
place as alleged by the complainant and that as per the call
details, the complainant had received messages from Telenor at
5:22 PM showing her location at Vadodara, at Nizampura,
opposite Vishranti Park and that the distance between Kim and
Vadodara is about 150 km approximately and when the
complainant is at Vadodara at 5:22 PM on 23-7-2016, it is
impossible for the complainant to return to Kim at 6:30 PM by
covering a distance of about 150 km in just less than an hour and
thus, the alleged incident at Kim on 23-7-2016 at 6:30 is is next
to impossible, which would be even otherwise evident from the
call details produced by the IO while report dated 16-10-2016,
which is annexed as Annexure-E.
4.16 Thus, it is argued that the present FIR is nothing but an
abuse of process of law, and has prayed to quash the present FIR
qua applicant- husband as well as the petitioners.
4.17. Learned advocate Mr. Aadesara would lastly submit that
since the wife has remarried, the factum of she having accepted
the divorce (talaq) stands fortified.
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dalfraz Havewalla as well
as learned APP would submit that merely because the
complainant has not stated in her FIR that she has been divorced
would not make the averments in the FIR as null and void.
5.1 Learned advocate for the complainant further submitted on
the bare reading of the entire FIR, a prima facie case is made out
against the applicant- husband as well as all the petitioners, in as
much as the allegations qua not satisfying the dowry that
culminated into divorce stands fortified with the fact that the
applicant-husband has given triple talaq unilaterally and thus, the
allegations in the FIR gets fortified that since the demand was not
met with, divorce was granted unilaterally.
5.2 The learned advocate for the complainant further argued
that even if there were certain contradictions between the
allegations made in the application dated 19.07.2016 (registered
on 31.07.2016) and those contained in the FIR, such
contradictions would not, by themselves, render the FIR liable to
be quashed. In this regard, the learned advocate submitted that
the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable
in the Indian legal context. Therefore, such contradictions are
matters to be examined and tested during the trial. On these
grounds, the learned advocate urged the Court to dismiss the
present petition.
6. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties
and having gone through the FIR as well as the counter of charge
sheet, except for one independent witness, there are no other
witnesses have been named in the charge sheet. In all, there are
Page 14 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
eight witnesses: two panch witnesses, three related witnesses,
one independent witness, one witness who has lodged the FIR,
and one who has investigated.
6.1 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,
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
Page 15 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
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."
6.2 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
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 ]
Page 16 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
[(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
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
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
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
the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the
larger interest of the society.”
6.3 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
Page 18 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
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 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
Page 19 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
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
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
Page 20 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
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.”
6.4 Tested on the aforesaid principles, if the averments made in
the FIR considered, the allegations are vague, omnibus, and
without there being any specific role attributed to the applicants,
in as much as the application dated 19-7-2016 (registered on 31-
7-2016) and the FIR speaks volumes about the conduct of the
complainant. Having carefully scrutinized the material on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the allegations in the FIR
suffer from fundamental contradictions when juxtaposed with the
averments made in the application dated 19.07.2016. The
assertions made against the applicants are manifestly general
and omnibus in nature, completely lacking in specific overt acts.
This material variance on the face of record makes it writ large
that the complainant has made improvements to suit her
convenience. Such conduct speaks volumes and clearly
demonstrates that the present criminal proceedings are an abuse
of the judicial process.
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
6.5 It transpires from the contents of the FIR that initially the
complainant resided after the marriage along with the husband,
father-in-law, and mother-in-law at Godhara. Subsequently, on
th
11 October 2015, the applicant along with his wife started
residing at Gandhinagar in rented premises and from the perusal
of the FIR, there are no allegations qua this period more
particularly qua the petitioners namely the father-in-law, mother-
in-law, sister-in-law, as well as elder brother of father-in-law.
6.6 The allegations against the husband are dated 11.10.2015
that while he was residing at Gandhinagar in a rented premises
and after having stayed for a few days that is almost after eight
days the husband started demanding sum of rupees 10 lakh or a
house of the complainant's father at Vadodara and if she fails to
do so, she would be divorced. Such allegation also leveled
against the applicant- husband as well as all the petitioners for a
period after almost three months residing with applicant-
husband at Gandhinagar and as stated in the FIR, at three
instances the money was asked for. Consequently, further
allegations are dated 14.01.2016 where the mother-in-law, father-
in-law came to Gandhinagar and took the complainant to Godhra.
At that time also, at Godhra, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and
sister-in-law demanded dowry of rupees 10 lakh. Allegations of
physical abuse are also leveled. Same allegations are also against
the elder brother of the father-in-law, namely Asgar Ali Gulam
Hussein.
6.7 In this regards, it would be apt to refer the judgement in the
case of Mahmood Ali vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh report
in 2023 INSC 684, wherein, it is held as follows:-
Page 22 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
“12. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC ) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the
Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little
more closely. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted
with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are
such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just
enough for the Court to look into the averments made in
the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
any other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of
the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of
a case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple
FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the registration of
multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the
issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal
grudge as alleged. ”
Page 23 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
6.8 A careful perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations
contained therein are general, vague, and unspecific, failing to
satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. To attract
the provisions of Section 498A of the IPC, the allegations of
harassment must be of such a nature and extent as to coerce the
woman to meet an unlawful demand for dowry or drive her to
extreme ends. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bhaskar Lal Sharma Vs. Monika (2009) 10 SCC 604 held
that allegations of harassment must meet this specific threshold
to constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC.
6.9 Upon close examination of the allegations in the FIR, the
requisite statutory elements and degree of gravity are
conspicuously absent. The over-implication and tendency to rope
in all family members speak for themselves. In such
circumstances, attributing specific over acts to each accused
becomes indispensable, particularly when the applicants/
Petitioners resided separately and did not share a common
household.
6.10 The record discloses that the complainant resided with the
Applicant – husband at Gandhinagar for a brief period of barely
seven months, whereas the in laws (father in law, mother in law,
sister in law and uncle in law) resided separately at Godhara, and
another sister in law resided with her family at Vadodara. When
the FIR is read as whole against the backdrop of these separate
residences, it becomes manifest that the allegations levelled
against the present applicants/petitioners are vague and
unfounded. The continuation of these criminal proceedings
clearly amounts to an abuse of the process of law, initiated solely
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/5709/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240167492018)
to wreck personal vengeance.
7. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.
The impugned FIR being CR No. I-29/2016 at Kim Police Station,
District Surat on 01.09.2016 in respect of alleged incident for the
period between 11.10.2015 to 23.01.2016 against the present
petitioners for the offences punishable under Section
498A,323,504,506(2) and 114 of the IPC read with Section 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom qua the present petitioners, stands
quashed and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 17:52:25 IST 2026