Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Application Seeking Quashing of FIR U/S 306 and 498A of the IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, dismissed an application seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) filed against the applicant, Pravinsinh Harisinh Chavda. The FIR alleged offenses under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 498A (cruelty towards a married woman), and 114 (abetment in the absence of a specific provision) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court, after considering the arguments put forth by the applicant's advocate, Mr. Tejas M Barot, and the respondent's advocate, Mr. H M Shah, ruled that a prima facie case had been established against the accused. The judgment stated, "While deciding an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the task is to determine whether the allegations, if accepted at face value, prima facie constitute an offense."

The allegations in the FIR involved continuous harassment and mental and physical torture faced by the deceased due to her inability to conceive. The complaint further alleged that the accused had sold jewelry given by the deceased's father. The court found that these allegations satisfied the ingredients of offenses under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC. Consequently, the court decided not to exercise its discretionary power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR.

The judgment cited relevant legal precedents to support its decision, including the Supreme Court's observations in Mahendra K.C. vs. State of Karnataka. It emphasized that the presence of a prima facie case warranted further adjudication through a proper criminal trial.

While dismissing the application, the court clarified that its decision did not prejudge the ultimate outcome of the case, as the trial would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. The court's ruling allows the proceedings to continue in accordance with the FIR.

This judgment highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that allegations of cruelty and abetment of suicide are thoroughly examined and subjected to a fair trial. It reinforces the principle that the quashing of an FIR should be based on a careful evaluation of the prima facie case, rather than dismissing it prematurely.

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt stated, "Since the prima facie offense is made out and required to be adjudicated by proper criminal trial, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the quashing of FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. more particularly... do not think fit to exercise the discretionary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C."

The judgment serves as a reminder that the judiciary plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is served in cases involving serious offenses like cruelty and abetment of suicide.

Date of Decision: 12/07/2023

PRAVINSINH HARISINH CHAVDA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Latest Legal News