Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/124/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 124 of 2010
=======================================================
SANDIP
ISHVARCHAND SHARMA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=======================================================
Appearance :
MR
PRATIK B BAROT for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR RC KODEKAR APP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR RC JANI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 12/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned A.P.P., Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the respondent no.1-State and
learned counsel, Mr.R.C. Jani for the respondent no.2 waive service
of notice of rule.
The
applicants are the original accused. They seek quashing of the
complaint and the subsequent chargesheet filed thereon by the
respondent no.2. Briefly stated facts are that the applicants nos.1
and 2 apparently had an affair. This was not approved of by the
father of the girl, applicant no.2. When the applicant no.2 ran away
with the applicant no.1, the father filed complaint at Annexure-A
alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 as well as
under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that some
cash and valuable ornaments were missing from the house.
Earlier,
this Court had ascertained the wish of the girl in Special Criminal
Application No.661/2006 and found that she was desirous of living
with her husband. She was admittedly at that time more than 18 years
of age.
Learned
Advocates for the applicants as well as the respondent no.2-original
complainant jointly submit that the issues have been resolved
between the parties. The father of the applicant no.2 has reconciled
with the daughters’ relation with the applicant no.1. She is happily
married and the complainant does not wish to pursue the complaint
any further. An affidavit of the respondent no.2 is also placed on
record.
Learned
counsel for the parties submit that no useful purpose would be
served in permitting further trial in connection with the complaint
at Annexure-A particularly when it is found that the girl was never
kidnapped but had joined the applicant no.1 voluntarily.
Primarily,
considering the fact that the applicant no.2 was more than 18 years
of age when she left her parents’ house. Her wish was ascertained by
the Division Bench of this Court in a Habeas Corpus Petition and
further considering the fact that the original complainant also does
not wish to pursue further with the complaint, I find that no useful
purpose would be served in permitting full fledge trial in
connection with complaint at Annexure-A.
Considering
the special facts and circumstances of the case, complaint at
Annexure-a as well as chargesheet filed by the Police pursuant to
the said complaint are quashed. Rule is made absolute. Application
is disposed of accordingly.
The
Trial Court may pass separate order on the seized muddamal on an
application that may be filed by the concerned person.
(AKIL
KURESHI,J.)
/patil
Top