Gujarat High Court
Numa Mehboobbhai Hathila vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 23528 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NUMA MEHBOOBBHAI HATHILA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRADIP J PATEL(5896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
ROHAN SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 29/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed to
quash and set aside the impugned FIR being I-CR No.
11191047220041/2022 with Mahila Police Station (East), District
Ahmedabad City for the offences under Section 498(A), 323,
294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
1.1 The Petitioner No. 1 is the Sister in law of the original
Complainant – Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are
the friends of the husband of the Original complainant-
Page 1 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
Respondent No. 2.
2. The facts of the FIR in nutshell are as under:-
2.1 The allegations against the present applicants are in the FIR
against Petitioner No.1 are to the effect that….
“after one week of my marriage, everything
went on smoothly, and after one week they
started taking household work from me, and my
mother-in-law Yasminben and my sister-in-law
Numaben started taunting with regards to
household work and whatever I used to cook,
they used to point out mistakes and used to say
“you do not know how to cook and your mother-
father has not taught you anything” and thus
taunted her.”
2.2 As far as allegations against petitioner number 2 and 3 are
concerned, they are in the FIR to the effect that….
“On 13.03.2022, Dr. Jashmin Vahid and Dr.
Wahid came along with my husband at our
residence. At that time, I informed my husband
that “you should keep me as your wife”, to
which my husband stated that “if you want to
remain as my wife, you will have to bear too
much” and started quarreling with me and
threatened me to give divorce. At that time, Dr.
Jashmin Vahid and Dr. Wahid who came along
with my husband took side of my husband and
also started quarreling with me and stated that
“you do not want to carry on with married life
and you are unnecessarily harassing.”
Except for these allegations, there is nothing on record qua
the present petitioners.
Page 2 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Ruhan M Hathila for Learned
Advocate Mr. Pradip J Patel would submit that :-
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that
petitioner No. 1, aged 22 years at the time of filing of the
petition, was doing internship of physiotherapy. That she was
also attending college from 9 to 5, and after college used to go
for internship. Therefore, there is hardly any question of she
being available at the residence and thus, the allegations against
the present petitioner No. 1 are vague and she has been wrongly
dragged into the alleged FIR.
3.2 That as far as petitioner number 2 and 3 are concerned,
they are doctors by profession and friends of the husband of
respondent No. 2, and merely stating that “you do not want to
continue with the married life and you are unnecessarily
harassing” would not amount to mental cruelty. Thus, argued
that none of the petitioners have used any abusive language or
words/ballad, nor the residence can be said to be a public place,
and has thus argued that even provisions of section 294(b) are
not attracted.
3.3 That the allegations qua the present petitioner also do not
attract causing any hurt so as to attract provisions under section
323 of the IPC, as there are no allegations. Similarly, no
allegations of criminal intimidation are also against the present
petitioners, and thus argued to allow present petition.
3.4 That no allegations qua dowry or demand are also levelled
against the present petitioners and therefore provisions ofPage 3 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act would also not be
attracted.
4. Though served, none appears for original
complainant/respondent number 2.
5 Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah for the Respondent – State
would fairly submit that the allegations from the reading of the
FIR would not attract any of the provisions narrated in the FIR,
more particularly 498A, 323, 294(b), 506(1) read with section 114
and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act qua the present
petitioners.
6. Heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties.
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 thePage 4 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
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 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
Page 5 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
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 ][(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
Page 6 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
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 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
Page 7 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
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 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 employPage 8 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
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 of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield byPage 9 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
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.”
Page 10 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
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 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 various pronouncements of the Apex Court as
above, if the case on hand is adverted, following aspects emerge:
a) the allegations against the applicants are vague and
omnibus;
b) Having regards to the allegations levelled against the
present petitioners, more particularly the sister-in-law
(petitioner number 1) and friend of the husband of
respondent no, 2 herein (petitioner number 2 and 3), no
case is made out attracting any of the provisions of section
498A, 323, 294(b), 506, 114 or section 4 of the DowryPage 11 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
Prohibition Act. Inasmuch as, the allegations as stated
hereinabove are vague, general, not attracting mental or
physical cruelty, or voluntarily causing hurt, or using ballad
in a public place, nor there is any threat or criminal
intimidation, nor are there any demands of dowry as far as
the present petitioners are concerned.
c) similar allegations of harassment and demand for
dowry made in the FIR, however, without there being any
specific instance;
d) it is trite that small and scattered incidents without
any immediate proximity do not constitute offence of
cruelty;
e) the contents of the FIR itself, does not repose
confidence so far as allegations qua present applicants are
concerned.
f) no ingredients of offence alleged appear to have
been satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case so
far as applicants are concerned;
g) in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14
SCC 452, it is held that 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.
Page 12 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23528/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2026
undefined
7. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.
The impugned FIR being I-CR No. 11191047220041/2022 with
Mahila Police Station (East), District Ahmedabad City for the
offences under Section 498(A), 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the 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 13 of 13
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Wed Jul 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 29 22:05:52 IST 2026
