Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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