R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 8904 of 2024 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8904 of 2024 ========================================================== VIKASKUMAR RUPSINH KATARA (ld. advocate does not pres petition qua petitioner no.1) & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: APPEARANCE DELETED for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JOHNSEY P MACWAN(5498) for the Applicant(s) No. 2,3,4,5 MS MEDHA N PANDYA(6171) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 30/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice for the respondent-State. 2. By this application, under Section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioners seek to invoke inherent powers of this Court praying quashing of the FIR, being I-C.R.No.11215018240006 of 2024, registered with Mahila Police Station, Anand for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant came into contact with applicant No.1 who is not before this Court through Facebook in 2019 and subsequently they fell in love and R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 entered into a court marriage on 18.04.2019. At that time, she was still pursuing her education. Due to initial opposition from her parents, she stayed at her parental home with her husband's consent. Later, on 17.03.2020, she moved into her matrimonial home, and formal community marriage rituals were performed on 21.11.2021. After moving in with her husband at Gandhinagar, where he was employed as a DYSO in a government department, the marriage was peaceful for a brief period. Thereafter, disputes arose over her desire to continue education. The husband and in-laws demanded money from her parents for further studies and began subjecting her to verbal and physical abuse. Despite being given Rs.20,000 by her parents, the harassment continued. While pregnant, she was pressured to discontinue treatment at Gandhinagar and shift to Idar. She faced further threats from her in-laws regarding her delivery at her maternal home. During this period, her husband and in-laws continued to harass, abuse, and humiliate her. Following the birth of her child via C-section on 15.07.2023, the husband and in-laws abandoned her at the hospital and never returned to take her or the child back. On 26.11.2023, during a visit to her in-laws' residence, she was verbally abused, pushed, and threatened. Police reconciliation efforts failed due to the husband's refusal and threats from the brother-in-law. Despite repeated efforts by her parents and community elders to reconcile, the husband refused to accept her back. The complainant has suffered continuous physical, mental, and emotional abuse, dowry demands, and threats from her husband and his family, which compelled her to lodge the present complaint. Page 2 of 14 R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 4. The learned advocate for the applicants submits that the petitioners have no involvement in the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law of the complainant, Petitioner No.3 is the mother- in-law, Petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law, and Petitioner No.5 is the brother-in-law (husband of the complainant’s sister-in-law). All the petitioners reside separately from the complainant and her husband. The only allegation against them is that they allegedly incited the complainant’s husband and supported him in quarreling with the complainant. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the facts narrated therein are either false or distorted with an intention to mislead the Court and the investigating agency. The allegations against the petitioners are baseless, especially since they do not reside under the same roof as the complainant. 4.1 It is further submitted that the complaint was filed with the intent to destroy the social and economic prestige of the petitioners and to harass them and the husband to extort money. All allegations of physical, verbal, and emotional torture are false and baseless. None of the incidents alleged in the complaint ever took place. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at face value, they do not attract the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Even if the entire complaint is read in its entirety, the allegations made against the applicant is of such a general and ambiguous nature that they are not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the learned advocate for R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 the applicant requests that the present pettiion be allowed. 5. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the application and submitted that the complainant was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the accused and also received life threats. The accused made her life hard to live, compelling her to leave her matrimonial home. In view of the above, the learned APP requested that the application be dismissed. 6. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has adopted the submissions of the learned APP and submits that the applicant is directly involved in the offence of mentally and physically harassing the complainant. It is submitted that the accused persons are headstrong, and one of them is employed in the Sachivalaya. Due to their influence, the complainant was unable to lodge the complaint in a timely manner. The present petitioners are alleged to have made demands for dowry, and due to their constant harassment, the complainant was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home. The investigation is at a nascent stage. Hence, prima facie involvement of the petitioners is made out, and therefore, he prays that the present application be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the the complainant came into touch with the applicant who is not before this Court as the petition is disposed R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 of as not pressed qua him and the complainant was married to him and later began residing with him in Gandhinagar. She alleges mental and physical harassment by her husband and in- laws over dowry. However, the complainant had also contacted the 181 Women’s Helpline and reconciliation efforts were made, but the same failed, leading to the registration of the impugned complaint. 8. It appears that Petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law of the complainant, Petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law, Petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law, and Petitioner No.5 is the brother-in- law (husband of the complainant’s sister-in-law). The complainant’s husband is employed at Gandhinagar in the Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department as a Deputy Section Officer, and the complainant was residing with him in Gandhinagar. The father-in-law and mother-in-law used to visit them occasionally. Initially, the marital life of the complainant was allegedly smooth for about six months. Thereafter, the complainant allegedly expressed her desire to pursue further studies, to which her husband did not respond favorably. It is alleged that on 4th May 2022 at around 10:00 a.m., her husband began to quarrel with her, opposed her intention to study, and stated that if she wished to continue her studies, she would go to her parental home and bring money. The husband allegedly used to frequently quarrel with, beat, and verbally abuse her. 9. Further it appears from the record that the petitioners herein used to frequently visit the complainant and her husband R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 and allegedly instigated the husband to demand dowry and pressurize the complainant. The complainant’s father ultimately gave Rs.20,000/- to enable her to continue her education. The petitioners used to ridicule her cooking skills and insult her by saying that her parents had not taught her anything. 10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it clearly emerges that the primary allegations of mental and physical harassment pertain to the complainant's husband, who is not before this Hon’ble Court. Petitioners No.2 to 5, who are the in-laws and distant relatives of the complainant, have been implicated on the basis of general, omnibus, and unsubstantiated allegations without any specific instances of overt acts or physical cruelty. Though it is alleged that they instigated the husband and passed derogatory remarks about the complainant, such statements, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any direct involvement or active participation in the commission of the alleged offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act. Moreover, Petitioners No.4 and 5 are distant relatives who do not reside with the complainant and her husband, and mere casual visits or strained relations cannot be equated with criminal culpability, especially when there is no supporting medical or documentary evidence to substantiate the claims of cruelty or harassment. The complaint appears to be an outburst of matrimonial discord primarily between the complainant and her husband, and the petitioners seem to have been falsely roped in with a view to pressurize the husband and settle personal R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 scores. In such circumstances, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law, particularly when no prima facie case is made out against them. 11. It appears that applicant is facing charge of Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, as per the allegations made in the complaint, ingredient of Section 498A is made out. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer the decisions of the Apex Court in cases of (i) Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023INSC779 / (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015), (ii) Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand, another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], 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. 12. This Court deems it fit to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of of Ghanshyam Soni v. State Government of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2025 SCC R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 OnLine SC 1301, wherein the Court has observed in para 10 as under: “10. A perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by the complainant are that in the year 1999, the Appellant inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her for bringing insufficient dowry. The Complainant refers to few instances of such atrocities, however the allegations are generic, and rather ambiguous. The allegations against the family members, who have been unfortunately roped in, is that they used to instigate the Appellant husband to harass the Complainant wife, and taunted the Complainant for not bringing enough dowry; however, there is no specific incident of harassment or any evidence to that effect. Similarly, the allegations against the five out of six sisters that they used to insult the Complainant and demanded dowry articles from her, and upon failure beat her up, but there is not even a cursory mention of the incident. An allegation has also been made against a tailor named Bhagwat that he being a friend of the Appellant instigated him against the Complainant, and was allegedly instrumental in blowing his greed. Such allegations are merely accusatory and contentious in nature, and do not elaborate a concrete picture of what may have transpired. For this reason alone, and that the evidence on record is clearly inconsistent with the accusations, the version of the Complainant seems implausible and unreliable. The following observation in K Subba Rao v. State of Telangand Represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and Ors., reported in 2018 14 SCC 12, fits perfectly to the present scenario: “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the 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." 13. This Court deems is appropriate to refer to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741, wherein the Court observed as under:- R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 “19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding. 20. 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 R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 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. 21.In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not to exercise such a power.” 14. So far as offence under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC are also concerned, in this regard, it would be apposite the refer the R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kahkasan Kausar alias Sonam and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599. Even, no allegation is levelled against the present accused to cause any injury to the complainant and no any evidence or medical certificate is produced about the treatment of alleged injury. 15. Reference is required to be made 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: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art. 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (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 continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 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.” 16. Even in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 369, the same view was observed. It is a clear case of over- implication. The allegation against the applicants is that they have instigated the complainant's husband. Needless to say, the husband is not before this Court, as discussed above. Prima facie, it appears that with ulterior motives, the present applicants are being falsely dragged into litigation. This is a clear case of over-implication, and no purpose would be served by proceeding further with the litigation and the petitioners No.2 to 5 have been protected since 23.07.2024. In view of the above, it appears that with a view to exerting pressure on the petitioners to settle the dispute with the husband, the present petitioners are being dragged into litigation, thereby abusing the process of law. Hence, the present impugned complaint is required to be quashed and set aside because the allegations are trivial in nature, and there has been no progress since 2024. 17. So far as under Section 504 is concerned, the learned Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC 683, has held that: R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 “Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. (Para 25- 26) Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the essential elements for constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present. (Para 28) 18. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned complaint being I-C.R.No.11215018240006 of 2024, registered with Mahila Police Station, Anand as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicants No. 2 to 5 R/SCR.A/8904/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2025 herein. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. 19. Since the main matter is disposed of the Criminal Misc. Application for vacating interim relief does not survive. Hence the same is disposed of as does not survive. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ISTAYAK ALI(HC01093), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 31/07/2025 15:19:11