Allowed

Swapan Dineshchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC6 Dec 2018SCR.A/5828/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order allowed two Special Criminal Applications seeking quashing of FIRs. The court observed the matters arose from the same incident involving matrimonial and family disputes, noting the parties had lodged cross-complaints. Finding no prima facie case, the court quashed both FIRs to prevent broadening the rift between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Both FIRs (C.R. No. I-186 of 2014 and C.R. No. I-188 of 2014) were quashed and set aside.

Swapan Dineshchandra Patel Vs State of Gujarat — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

R/SCR.A/5828/2014 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5828 of 2014 With

¶4

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5056 of 2014

¶5

==========================================================

¶6

SWAPAN DINESHCHANDRA PATEL

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶9

========================================================== 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

¶10

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

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶13

Date : 06/12/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

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-

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

R/SCR.A/5828/2014 ORDER

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

R/SCR.A/5828/2014 ORDER

¶22

time, they did not allow her to enter the house,
and therefore, some quarrel had taken place, for
which the cross complaints were filed.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

5.Both the petitions are allowed accordingly.

¶26

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)

¶27

AMAR SINGH

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Swapan Dineshchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapan Dineshchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Milan Dineshbhai Cholera Vs State of Gujarat

Milan Dineshbhai Cholera Vs State of Gujarat

Shaileshbhai Prabhudas Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Patel Vikas Mahendrabhai Vs State of Gujarat

Shailendrasinh Shankarsinh Vaghela Vs State of Gujarat

Falguniben Swapan Dineshchandra Patel Vs State of Gujarat