Gujarat High Court High Court

Shankarbhai vs State on 20 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Shankarbhai vs State on 20 August, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/9327/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9327 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

SHANKARBHAI
TAPUBHAI SITAPRA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PM LAKHANI for
Applicant(s) : 1,MRS RP LAKHANI for Applicant(s) : 1,MR SANDEEP R
LIMBANI for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR DEVANG VYAS ADDL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR RUPARELIAYA for Respondent(s)
: 2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 20/08/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

Rule.

Learned APP Mr.Devang Vyas and learned advocate Mr.Rupareliya waived
service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

Petitioner
is original accused, who seeks quashing of the complaint
annexure-A dated 20.07.2010 bearing C.R.No.I-75 of 2010 registered
before Babara Police Station, District Amreli.

Learned
advocates appearing for the parties jointly submitted that after
filing of the complaint, issues have been resolved between the
parties. They pointed out that the complainant and the
petitioner-accused are real brothers. The complaint was lodged on
account of family disputes and some misunderstanding between the
parties. It is stated that the complainant no longer wishes to press
the charges. In addition to aforesaid averments, I have perused the
complaint in question which pertains to petitioner original
accused who has allegedly taken loan of Rs.60,000/- from the
financial institution and also in the joint name of the complainant
without his consent. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
entire loan has been fully repaid.

Considering
the above aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that no useful
purpose would be served in permitting the investigation and trial
into the complaint in question and the same is, therefore, quashed.

Petition
is disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to above extent.

Direct
Service is permitted.

(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )

kailash

   

Top