R/SCR.A/9386/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9386 of 2025 ========================================================== APURVA RAJENDRABHAI MODI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. MAHENDRA PRATAP(18074) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 10/07/2025 ORAL ORDER Registry is directed to accept vakalatnama of learned Advocate Mr. D. K. Chaudhari who has instructions to appear for the respondent no.2. [1.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11206075220444 of 2022 registered with Visnagar Town Police Station, District Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. [2.0] The complainant – respondent no.2 appeared in person before the Court and tenders her affidavit with regard to settlement which is taken on record. [3.0] Going through the impugned FIR and investigation papers, it R/SCR.A/9386/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 appears that present petitioner is husband of respondent No.2 and impugned FIR is filed by respondent no.2 alleging mental and physical harassment meted upon respondent no.2. However, now the dispute is settled between the parties and divorce petition is pending before the Family Court and petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to respondent no.2 as alimony. Further petitioner and respondent no.2 have not been residing together for more than 3 years and there is no possibility of reconciliation. Therefore, present petition deserves consideration. [4.0] Further, it would be apposite to refer to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023INSC779 / (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015); Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667]; Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana reported in 2024 INSC 369; Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741; Kahkashan Kauar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 and Mahalakshmi & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2023 INSC 1050, wherein it is observed that “this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband’s close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection”. Page 2 of 4 R/SCR.A/9386/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 [5.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872 and in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has set out the categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised and held in para 102 as under: “(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent 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 R/SCR.A/9386/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 continuance of the proceedings 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 mala fide 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.” [6.0] In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 528 of the BNSS qua petitioner. [7.0] In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No.11206075220444 of 2022 registered with Visnagar Town Police Station, District Mehsana as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/07/2025 18:57:34