R/CR.MA/7013/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7013 of 2022 ========================================================== PARMAR DANABHAI KHEMABHAI & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 4,6 MR KAMLESH S KOTAI(6150) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,5 MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR RONAK RAVAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 30/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. In this matter, as the Rule was issued on 29.04.2022, with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the same is taken-up for hearing and final disposal, today. 2. At the outset, learned Advocate, Mr. Kotai, appearing for the petitioners submitted that, while issuing rule vide order dated 29.04.2022, this Court had permitted withdrawal of this petition qua Petitioner Nos. 4 and 6. Therefore, this petition shall, now, survive qua Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 only. 3. By way of this petition, Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have challenged the impugned FIR, being CR No. 11206001220012 of 2022, registered with Mahila Police R/CR.MA/7013/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 Station, Mehsana, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354-A, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, qua them. 4. As per the impugned FIR filed by Respondent No.2 – original complainant, she got married with one Harshadkumar Dandabhai Parmar on 23.05.2013, as per the customs of their caste, who is not before this Court. Out of the said wedlock, Respondent No.2 gave birth to a female child, namely Nevya. It is, further, stated in the FIR that after the marriage, she was treated well, initially, but, later on all the accused persons started causing harassment to her over the issue of dowry. It is also stated in the FIR that in the year 2015, Respondent No.2 was driven out of her matrimonial home by her in-laws and she had to stay at her parental home for about one year. Thereafter, the matter was compromised and Respondent No.2 went back to reside at her matrimonial home, whereupon, allegedly a demand of Rs.2,00,000/- lakh towards dowry was made. 4.1 Respondent No.2, further, stated in the complaint that on 10.07.2020, when she went to fetch her daughter Nevya, at the house of her sisters-in-law, she was attacked by them and was not allowed to enter their house. Therefore, Respondent No.2 went to her paternal house along with her daughter. Page 2 of 6 R/CR.MA/7013/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 4.2 Respondent No.2 stated in the impugned FIR that as the talks of settlement were going on, she did not file the FIR, but, when the settlement could not be arrived at, she lodged the impugned FIR on 17.03.2022. Hence, the present petition is filed. 5. Learned Advocate, Mr. Kotai, appearing for Petitioners submitted that Petitioner No. 1 is father-in-law, Petitioner No.2 is brother-in-law, Petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 are sister-in- law of Respondent No.2 – original complainant. He submitted that the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 have nothing to do with the allegations made in the impugned FIR and therefore, the prosecution qua Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 is nothing, but, the abuse and the misuse of the process of law. 5.1 It was submitted that the last incident of harassment to Respondent No.2 allegedly took place on 10.07.2020 for which the impugned FIR came to be filed after the delay of about 22 months, i.e. in the year 2022. 5.2 It was submitted that the allegations qua Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 pertains to taunting Respondent No.2, whereas, the allegations qua Petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 are that they had allegedly inflicted kick and fist blows on R/CR.MA/7013/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 Respondent No.2. 5.3 It was submitted that the allegations made in the impugned FIR vague, general and non-specific and therefore, this petition be allowed qua Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. 6. On the other hand, learned APP, Mr. Raval, vehemently opposed this petition submitted that as the charge-sheet has already been filed, a prima facie offence is made out against Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition. 6.1 In response to a specific query by this Court, as to whether, what material is available against Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in the papers of charge-sheet, learned APP submitted that, except, the statement of Respondent No.2, herself, and the statement of her relatives, there is no other material in the form of statement of an independent eye- witness, who might have seen the accused persons, committing the allege offence. He, however, submitted that there is sufficient material against Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and therefore, this petition be dismissed. 7. Learned Advocate, Mr. Chaudhary, appearing for Respondent No.2 – original complainant submitted that merely because the impugned FIR is filed after a period of R/CR.MA/7013/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 about 22 months, the genuineness of the FIR cannot be questioned. It was submitted that the delay of two years is sufficiently explained by Respondent No.2 in the impugned FIR, whereby, it was submitted that all throughout, Respondent No.2 was given a false hope that the dispute shall be resolved and therefore, she did not file the FIR earlier. However, learned Advocate, Mr. Chaudhary, could not dispute the fact that in the form of material against Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, there are the statements of Respondent No.2 complainant and her relatives only and there is no statement of any independent witness available against them. He, however, prayed that as the charge-sheet is filed and a case is made out, this petition be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the material on record and I find that even as per the impugned FIR, the last incident of harassment to Respondent No.2 allegedly took place on 10.04.2020, whereas, the FIR for the same came to be filed only in the year 2022, i.e. after the delay of about 22 months. Further, from a perusal of the impugned FIR, it is revealed that the allegations qua Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are of taunting, whereas, the allegations qua Petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 are of inflicting kick and fist blows on Respondent No.2. Moreover, so far as Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are concerned, the impugned FIR seems to be totally vague, general, non- specific and imaginary and therefore, the same does not R/CR.MA/7013/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2025 inspire any confidence. 8.1 This Court also noticed that the material in the form of charge-sheet, which is available against Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, contains the statement of Respondent No.2 and her witnesses and there is no statement of independent, eye- witness available on record qua Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. Thus, considering the fact that there is a delay of about 22 months in filing the FIR as well as the fact that the allegations made against Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 are vague, general and non-specific, this petition deserves to be allowed qua them. 9. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned FIR, being CR No. 11206001220012 of 2022, registered with Mahila Police Station, Mehsana, as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, are quashed and set aside qua Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 only. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) UMESH/- Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: CHAVDA UMESH(HC00203), Principal pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/06/2025 17:45:56