FIR Lodged Suppressing Fact Of Settlement & Receiving Stridhan Back: Gujarat High Court Quashes Section 498A IPC Case

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking quashing and setting aside the FIR registered under Sections 323, 498A, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with chargesheet as well as the proceedings arising therefrom.

The Single Bench of Justice P. M. Raval held, “Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and by suppressing material facts, by making vague and misleading statements, when an FIR has been lodged that too also without stating the factum of Stridhan having received back, coupled with the fact that, at the first instance, the complainant had ignored to accept the notice and subsequently despite of service of notice has not remained present before this Court is nothing but the conduct which requires to be considered while deciding the present petition, when the veracity of the FIR itself is under question.”

“Thus, merely on the basis of the vague allegations, the lodging of the present FIR would be abuse of process of law, without making full and fair disclosure of all material facts, more particularly, by invoking the criminal machinery, is nothing but abuse of process of law”, it added.

Advocate Tapaswi P Raval represented the Appellant while Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan N. Shah represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that the petitioners commented against her work by saying that she did not know how to do domestic household work and her mother had taught her nothing. It was alleged that the accused demanded dowry repeatedly; she was beaten and forcibly made to drink Dettol. It was thus alleged that the accused persons together harassed her and also perpetrated physical and mental cruelty, thereby committing offences under Sections 323, 498, 506(1), 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners, on the contrary, alleged that the complainant had not come with clean hands since a settlement agreement was already executed wherein a huge amount of Rs 20 lakh had been paid by the accused as full and final settlement by way of four cheques of Rs 5 lakh each, which had also been honoured.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the papers of the chargesheet as well as FIR, the Bench noted that except for the four statements which were nothing but reproduction of the contents in the FIR, there were no independent statements supporting the allegations. “Though, it is a tendency that no third party would interfere with the matrimonial disputes, however, statement with regards to any of the relatives of the complainant would have thrown certain light on the allegations made in the FIR”, it added. The Bench further noticed that Rs 20 lakh had been transferred in the name of the complainant’s father and in the name of complainant.

The Bench took note of the factum of Stridhan being exchanged on February 20, 2017, as well as the fact that an agreement was entered into between the father and the father-in-law of the complainant dated March 17, 2017, wherein various items which had been handed back were also appended.

The Bench also noted that the wife had lodged the complaint within 12 days of cheques being honoured worth Rs 20 lakh by suppressing the factum of settlement, as a full and final settlement had arrived between the parties. Taking into consideration the vague allegations without full and fair disclosure of all material facts, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the FIR as well the proceedings against the petitioners.

Cause Title: A & Ors. v. State Of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:42030)

Click here to read/download Order