Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance : vs Mr Devang Vyas on 8 February, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Appearance : vs Mr Devang Vyas on 8 February, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/205/2010	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 205 of 2010
 

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


 

RAJNIKANT
MANILAL PATEL
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
NITINCHANDRA DAVE for
the Petitioner 
MR DEVANG VYAS, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent Nos.1-3 
None for Respondent(s) : 4-
6. 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/02/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)

1. Heard
Mr.N.N.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Devang Vyas,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent State.

2. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that though an application was
given on 14.11.2009, no FIR was registered on the basis of same. A
copy of the application dated 14.11.2009 is produced at page No.20.
Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that it is
respondent No.4, who has detained the daughter of the petitioner
against her wish and will.

3.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the basis of
application dated 14.11.2009, a Janva Jog entry was made
and the matter is being investigated. He submitted that the daughter
is not only major but is also married, as is clear from a copy of the
marriage certificate, which is produced at Annexure-A, page No.11.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the
statements of father of respondent No.4 were recorded by the police.
He submitted that there is no material on record to show that the
girl the daughter of the petitioner is detained by respondent
No.4 or for that reason respondent Nos.5 and 6.

4. In
view of above discussion, the application is found without any
substance and the same is dismissed.

At
the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is
impressed upon the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who in turn
shall impress upon the police authorities, to continue to investigate
the matter and non-entertainment of this petition shall not adversely
affect the investigation.

(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)

(J.C.Upadhyaya,
J.)

*Shitole

   

Top