Gujarat High Court High Court

Sangeetaben vs State on 7 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Sangeetaben vs State on 7 September, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1580/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1580 of 2010
 

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

 

SANGEETABEN
MAHENDRAKUMAR PATEL & 2 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
TEJAS M BAROT for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. 
MS CHETNA SHAH ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/09/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Learned
learned advocate Mr.Nirav Trivedi for Mr.Barot for the petitioner and
learned APP Ms.Shah for the respondents.

Petitioners
are original accused of the complaint (Annexure-A) dated 15.02.2008
bearing CR No.II-12 of 2008 registered before the Siddhapur Police
Station, District Patan for the alleged offence under Section 294(A)
(B) and 114 of IPC and 110 of B.P.Act. Upon perusal of the complaint,
it appears that when the petitioner No.1 had gone to lodge the
complaint before the police, according to her, there was some delay
took place in recording the complaint, upon which, she acted in
indecent manner. The Police Head Constable has, therefore, lodged the
said complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 294-A and
other related provisions against the said lady and other members of
the family.

It
is pointed out that the lady had gone to police station to lodge the
complaint against her complaint. However, subsequently there has been
settlement between the parties. Said settlement has been produced on
record. In view of the above development and also looking to the
allegations in the complaint, I am of the opinion that no useful
purpose will be served in permitting investigation further into the
complaint (Annexure-A), therefore, the same is quashed.

Petition
is disposed of accordingly.

Direct
Service is permitted.

(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )

kailash

   

Top