The Gujarat High Court quashed two Special Criminal Applications arising from cross-FIRs filed out of matrimonial and family disputes. Finding animosity due to pending divorce proceedings, the Court held no prima facie case existed and was in the interest of parties to quash the FIRs.
Both FIRs and petitions are quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R/SCR.A/5828/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5828 of 2014 With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5056 of 2014
==========================================================
SWAPAN DINESHCHANDRA PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
========================================================== Appearance in SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5828 of 2014 MR MANTHAN K BHATT(6549) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4 NOTICE UNSERVED(8) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MS. KRINA CALLA, APP (2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
Appearance in SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5056 of 2014 MR. P.P. MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS. KRINA CALLA, APP (2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MR MANTHAN K BHATT(6549) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 06/12/2018
ORAL ORDER
1.Both the petitions arise out of the same
incident which had taken place on 18.11.2014.
The Special Criminal Application No. 5828 of
2014 filed by the petitioners Swapan Patel and
others, arises out of the FIR being No. I-186 of
2014 registered at J.P. Police Station, Vadodara
against the petitioners who happened to be the
husband, father in-law, mother in-law of the
respondent No. 2 – Falguniben, and against the
petitioner Nirikshaben, for the offences under
section 498-A, 506(2), 341, 323, 504, 294-B and
114 of the IPC, whereas the Special Criminal
Application No. 5056 of 2014 filed by the said
Falguniben, arises out of the FIR being No. I-
Page 1 of 3
R/SCR.A/5828/2014 ORDER
188 of 2014, filed by her father in-law
Dineshchandra Patel registered at J.P. Police
Station, Vadodara for the offence under section
447 and 506 of IPC.
2.For the sake of convenience, the broad facts
of Special Criminal Application No. 5828 of 2014
are taken for consideration. The respondent No.
2 Falguniben had married the petitioner No. 1
Swapan Dineshchandra Patel. The petitioner No.
2 Dineshchandra Patel and petitioner No. 3
Pratibaben Patel happened to the father in-law
and mother in-law of the respondent No. 2
Falguniben. The petitioner No. 4 Nirikshaben
Ambalal Patel happens to be the third party
against whom the respondent has alleged that
that her husband had married her illegally. It
appears that some divorce proceedings are also
pending between the petitioner No. 1 and the
respondent Falguniben. It also appears that two
days before the alleged incident, i.e. on
16.11.2014, the respondent had given one
complaint before the same police station, which
is also part of the record, from which it
appears that the respondent Falguniben had left
India and was staying at Canada with her husband
since 2006 and she had come back on 07.11.2014.
The alleged incident had taken place on
18.11.2014, on which date the respondent
Falguniben had come to the house of her in-laws
i.e. the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and at that
Page 2 of 3
R/SCR.A/5828/2014 ORDER
time, they did not allow her to enter the house,
and therefore, some quarrel had taken place, for
which the cross complaints were filed.
3.Having regard to the allegations made in
both the complaints, it appears that due to
matrimonial and family disputes between the
parties, the animosity was created against the
said Falguniben. Since the divorce proceedings
are pending between the petitioner No. 1 and the
respondent, the alleged incident appears to have
taken place in the heat of moment, and
therefore, it is not desirable to keep both the
matters pending which otherwise would broaden
the rift between the parties. As such no prima
facie case appears to have been made out with
regard to the alleged offences in both the
complaints. Hence, the Court is of the opinion
that it would be in the interest of both the
parties that both the FIRs be quashed and set
aside.
4.In that view of the matter, the FIR being
C.R. No. I-186 of 2014 and FIR being C.R. No. I-
188 of 2014, both registered at J.P. Police
Station, Vadodara, are quashed and set aside.
5.Both the petitions are allowed accordingly.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)
AMAR SINGH
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether cross-filed FIRs arising from domestic disputes in matrimonial context should be quashed.
Whether prima facie case is made out due to animosity created by pending divorce proceedings and family disputes.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SWAPAN DINESHCHANDRA PATEL AND OTHERS
STATE OF GUJARAT
FALGUNIBEN
BELA M. TRIVEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court