The Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR against a woman’s mother-in-law for cruelty, bigamy and criminal breach of trust, holding that Section 498A IPC is not attracted because the complainant married her husband while her earlier marriage was still subsisting.
Justice P. M. Raval found that the case fell within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the mother-in-law.
Background
The FIR was registered on 13.01.2018 at Mahila Police Station (East), Ahmedabad, under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 406 and 114 IPC. The complainant had married the applicant’s son on 01.02.2007, and the couple later moved to London.
She alleged that the mother-in-law, during a short stay in London, abetted her son’s ill-treatment of her. She further alleged that her husband married another woman in December 2012 and later divorced her, and that the mother-in-law abetted the offence by not telling her about this second marriage.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Harshit Tolia, appearing with Advocate Hardikkumar D Rao for the mother-in-law, argued that the dispute was between husband and wife and the mother-in-law had been wrongly roped in. He submitted that the marriage itself was void because the complainant, though she claimed to be unmarried, obtained a divorce from her earlier husband only on 20.11.2007, more than nine months after the 01.02.2007 marriage. He also argued that the Section 323 allegations were vague, that no entrustment of property was alleged for Section 406, and that the delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained.
Advocate Jay S Shah, for the complainant, argued that a strong prima facie case was made out on a bare reading of the FIR. He submitted that the mother-in-law had suppressed the husband’s second marriage and that the Court should not conduct a mini trial. Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah, for the State, also opposed the plea. He submitted that inherent powers under Section 482 must be used sparingly and that the matter should go to trial.
Gujarat High Court on Section 498A and void marriage
The Court noted the undisputed facts: the complainant’s first marriage took place on 12.05.2003, and her divorce decree from the Family Court at Ahmedabad was passed only on 20.11.2007. The Court relied on Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P. and P. Sivakumar v. State. It held that, “as per the settled legal position, the marriage with the present accused No. 1 is null and void and therefore, there is no question of attraction of Section 498A IPC.”
The Court also noted that there were no allegations against the mother-in-law for the eight months the family lived together after the wedding. On the physical abuse said to have occurred in London in November 2014, it observed: “The allegations appear to be vague and general in nature. No specific details, date, time and or place have been narrated in the FIR.”
On Section 494, the Court recorded that the complainant’s counsel claimed a customary divorce but could not point to any record or document showing that such a custom prevailed in the complainant’s caste. The Court held that the allegation of the husband’s 2012 marriage “would pale into insignificance in view of the fact that the complainant herself entered into marriage with the son of the present applicant – original accused No. 1 in subsistence of previous marriage.”
On Section 406, the Court held: “In the absence of any such entrustment alleged in the FIR in question itself, the question of attracting the penal provision under Section 406 IPC does not arise.” Because the ingredients of the substantive offences were not satisfied, it held that Section 114 IPC would not apply either.
The Court also cited Supreme Court rulings, including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar. These caution against roping in the husband’s relatives through general, omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes.
Outcome
The Court held that the case squarely fell within parameters (1), (3), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal. It found that the proceedings “appear to be manifestly frivolous and instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.” The application was allowed, and the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed qua the mother-in-law.
Case Title: Hansaben W/o. Natwarlal Chauhan v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case No.: R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 2785 of 2018
Bench: Justice P. M. Raval
Date: 22.10.2026
