Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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