Gujarat High Court
Mobin Ahmed Pyar Mohammad Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat on 26 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15087/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15087 of 2017
==========================================================
MOBIN AHMED PYAR MOHAMMAD SHAIKH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ABATED for the Applicant(s) No. 4
MS BHAKTI M JOSHI(3820) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
Learned advocate for the petitioners seeks permission to
withdraw present petition qua petitioner No.1 – husband (Mobin
Ahmed Pyar Mohammad Shaikh). Permission granted.
Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn
qua petitioner no.1- husband. Petition for petitioner no.4 is
abated.
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners nos.2,3, 5 to 9 have
prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I-C.R.No.11 of 2013
registered with Rakhiyal Police Station, for the offences under
Sections 498A, 323, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and section 3, 7 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
2. Seeking quashment of questioned FIR, learned advocate for
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 02:09:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15087/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
the applicants submits that petitioners are in law of the
complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has made
general allegations against the petitioners in typical fashion to
enrope applicants in the offence. It is further submitted that FIR
even if taken on its face value, it could not establish offence of
section 498(A) and 506 of IPC. Reading questioned FIR, learned
advocate for the applicant submits that right to file FIR has been
misused by complainant and it is filed to pressurize the
petitioners and therefore, it is submitted to allow the petition.
3. Learned APP for respondent – State opposing plea to quash
the FIR would submit that according to FIR, the petitioners were
inciting husband of the complainant and it was root cause for
offence alleged against the husband. In view of that, it is
submitted that let trial to conduct against the petitioners to test
veracity of the allegations. On this grounds, it is submitted to
dismiss the petition.
4. At the outset, let refer relevant portion of case of
prosecution, which reads as under : –
“That the marriage between the first informant and the
applicant no. 1 was solemnized in the year 2004 as per the
rites and rituals. of their community and a girl was born
out of the said wedlock. That after three years of marriage
the first informant gave birth to another girl child and
thereafter the accused persons started torturing abusing
the first informant. andThat applicant no. 1 demanded money from the first
informant and the first informant gave him Rs. 2,55,000/-
for buying a new house. However, the applicant no. 1Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 02:09:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/15087/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
asked the first informant to bring Rs. 2,00,000/- from first
informant’s father and when she refused to do so, the first
informant was sent to her parental house.
That on 13/01/2013, the accused persons visited the
house of the first informant and demanded forRs.
2,00,000/- and also threatened her of dire consequences if
the money is not given. Hence, FIR was filed.
6. Apt to note that allegations levelled in the FIR are general
and vague in nature. In order to establish offence under section
498(A) of IPC, one need to averred that there was harassment or
cruelty. Cruelty means conduct likely to commit suicide or cause
grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health physically or
mentally to the complainant or harassment with a view to
coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for
property or valuable security.
7. In the present case, FIR even if taken on its face value, so
far as petitioners nos.2,3, 5 to 9 concerned, role of the
petitioners nos.2,3, 5 to 9 are found to be limited of inciting
husband of the complainant. It is alleged that due to such
incitement, husband of the complainant was extending physical
and mental cruelty to the complainant. However, specific
incidents are missing in the matter. Causal reference of the
petitioners in the FIR is insufficient to take cognizance.
8. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court warned against misuse of
law, while quashing offences under Section 498(A) of Code of
Criminal Procedure against Husband and in laws, in case of
Ghanshyam Soni versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and OthersPage 3 of 6
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 02:09:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/15087/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
of 2025 Live Law (SC) 676, observed and held 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 Telangana Represented by Its Secretary,
Department of Home & Ors.2, 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. ThePage 4 of 6
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 02:09:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/15087/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
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.”
11. As regards the Appellant, the purportedly
specific allegations levelled against him are
also obscure in nature. Even if the allegations
and the case of the prosecution is taken at its
face value, apart from the bald allegations
without any specifics of time, date or place,
there is no incriminating material found by the
prosecution or rather produced by the
complainant to substantiate the ingredients of
“cruelty” under section 498A IPC, as recently
observed in the case of Jaydedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Complainant has admittedly failed to
produce any medical records or injury reports,
x-ray reports, or any witnesses to substantiate
her allegations. We cannot ignore the fact that
the Complainant even withdrew her second
Complaint dt. 06.12.1999 six days later on
12.12.1999. There is also no evidence to
substantiate the purported demand for dowry
allegedly made by the Appellant or his family
and the investigative agencies in their own
prudence have not added sections 3 & 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to the
chargesheet.
13. It is rather unfortunate that the
Complainant being an officer of the State has
initiated criminal machinery in such a
manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five
sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as an
accused. Notwithstanding the possibility of
truth behind the allegations of cruelty, this
growing tendency to misuse legal provisions
has time and again been condemned by this
Court. The observations in Dara Lakshmi
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 02:09:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15087/2017 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr.,
Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand &
Anr. aptly captures this concern.”
9. Coming back to the present case, except bald allegations
against the petitioners nos.2,3, 5 to 9, who are in law of the
complainant, no specific incident or overtact is alleged against
the petitioners nos.2,3, 5 to 9. FIR is found to be abuse of
process of law against the petitioners nos.2,3, 5 to 9 and
allowing the petitioners to face trial would be absurd process.
10. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned FIR
being I-C.R.No.11 of 2013 registered with Rakhiyal Police
Station as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in
pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the
petitioners nos.2,3, 5 to 9 herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct
service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 02:09:22 IST 2025
