Appeal dismissed — ruling against Kaushalbhai Krushnakant Nayak (Petitioner)
In Short
An overseas Indian husband tried to file criminal cases against his estranged wife, her parents, and others over allegations of bigamy, forged signatures, and fake property valuation reports. Both lower courts and the High Court threw out his plea, noting that family lawsuits were already running and the criminal complaint was just an attempt to put pressure.
The Parties
Party A: Kaushalbhai Krushnakant Nayak
Party B: State of Gujarat, along with private respondents including his wife, her parents, and valuation experts
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. D.K. Trivedi
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mr. Jay Mehta (APP)
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice M. K. Thakker
What the Case Was About
This case started because a married couple's relationship turned deeply sour while living in Australia. The husband claimed his wife committed bigamy by remarrying someone else after getting a foreign divorce decree that he argued was invalid in India. He also claimed his father-in-law forged his signature back in 2011 to sponsor a visa visit, and that a fake property valuation report was prepared and later withdrawn during legal disputes. After local police ignored his initial complaints, he filed a private criminal inquiry before a magistrate court, which was dismissed. A higher sessions court agreed with that dismissal, leading the husband to approach the High Court.
Judgment Date
08/10/2026
The Outcome
The High Court found no error in the decisions made by the lower courts and dismissed the husband's petition.
What the Court Looked At
- The court observed that the wife had remarried years after obtaining a divorce decree, and a separate family suit was already pending before the family court in Gandhinagar to resolve marital disputes.
- Regarding the alleged forged signature on a visa sponsor letter from 2011, the court noted that the in-laws had visited Australia to help with the birth of a child, the husband knew about it all along, and he raised no complaints until 2022.
- On the issue of the disputed property valuation report, the court noted that the report was subsequently withdrawn and never used as the basis for any court judgment.
- The court concluded that the criminal complaint was created simply to exert pressure on the wife after their relationship turned sour.
"The learned Court after considering the report and the evidence led by the present petitioner has passed reasoned order rejecting the complaint holding that, prima facie, no cognizable offence is disclosed..."
What This Means For You
Waiting years to report a grievance — such as an old forged signature or a disputed document — can completely destroy your credibility if you only bring it up after a personal relationship breaks down. In this case, the husband waited over a decade to complain about a visa letter from 2011, which made it obvious to the court that the criminal complaint was just a pressure tactic rather than a genuine quest for justice. If you are dealing with a complex family or property dispute, letting years pass without taking proper legal action weakens your position and makes judges view your claims with suspicion. Understanding your legal options early can help you avoid wasting time and money on criminal complaints that courts are likely to dismiss. Setback Solutions is here to help you understand your options and coordinate next steps clearly and simply.
You Still Have Options
If you are facing a false FIR, stuck in a bitter family feud, or wondering how to handle a dismissed case, it can feel overwhelming and stressful. You do not have to figure it all out alone, and it is definitely not the end of the road. Exploring a second opinion, evaluating your documents, or seeking non-judicial guidance can give you much-needed clarity on what to do next. Reach out to Setback Solutions to get plain-language help and coordination for your next steps. Please remember that Setback Solutions is not a law firm, does not give legal advice, and never guarantees any specific court result.