Body Found Burnt Beyond Recognition—No DNA Test, No Direct Evidence, Only Assumptions Not Establish Guilt: Allahabad High Court Upheld Acquittal in Murder Case Land Acquisition | If the Circle Rate Is Inflated or Does Not Reflect Market Value, It Is for the State Government to Take Corrective Steps – SC Slams State for Challenging Its Own Guidelines in Land Compensation Dispute Scurrilous Allegations Against Judges Not Protected by Free Speech: Allahabad High Court Holds Devendra Kumar Dixit Guilty of Criminal Contempt Mere Vesting Under Section 10(3) Does Not Confer Actual Possession; Only Actual Physical Possession Can Defeat Landowner's Rights: Supreme Court Possession Is Prima Facie Proof of Ownership – Burden Is On the Government to Prove Otherwise: Supreme Court Invokes Section 113 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Section 80 CPC Is Not a Ritual, But a Constitutional Mandate: Supreme Court Rebukes Government for Ignoring Pre-Suit Notice in Land Dispute Suspicion Cannot Take the Place of Proof — Telangana High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Murder of Private Financier Conspiracy Hatched with Precision, Roles Assigned Like a Mission: Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment In Kidnapping of Proprietor of Khadim Shoe Company Grave Sudden Provocation Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Delhi High Court Converts Life Sentence into Sentence Already Undergone Absence of Prior Written Trade Authorisation Is Not Fatal If Client's Conscious Participation is Evident: Bombay High Court

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

Similar News