Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4261/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4261 of 2011
=========================================================
SWETA
ASHOKKUMAR SHARMA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MAHESH B BARIYA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR K P RAVAL APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 02/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner, who has been named as accused No.6 in the FIR being CR
no. I – 38 of 2010 dated 25.07.2010 registered with the
Bhavnagar Mahila Police Station has approached this Court, invoking
Section 482 of the CrPC for seeking quashment of the complaint qua
present petitioner, on the ground that the allegation even on the
face of it, if considered to be correct then also, no offence is
disclosed.
This
Court (Coram: Mr.M.D.Shah, J.) on 31.03.2011 passed following
order:-
“RULE
returnable qua respondent No.2 on 25/04/2011. Ms.C M Shah, learned
APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Direct
Service is permitted.”
The
Board indicate that all concerned are served. Original complainant
is served by way of direct service. Learned advocate for the
petitioner has submitted at the bar that the direct service is
effected to the original complainant and looking to the entire
controversy, the matter was taken-up for final disposal.
Respondent
No.2 lodged the complaint in the form of FIR being CR No.I –
38 of 2010 on 25.07.2010 registered with the Bhavnagar Mahila Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504,
506(2), 497, 323 and 114 and under Sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. The present petitioner is alleged to have
intimate relationship with the husband of the complainant and
present petitioner happens to be unmarried lady having no
relationship either with the accused or with the family of the
accused, which fall in the purview of the Section 498 of the Indian
Penal Code. The allegation mentioned in the memo of the complainant
did not disclose any overt act. Learned advocate for the petitioner
states that the husband and in-laws of the complainant are thus a
party of the committing crime. This, in my view, would not be
sufficient to saddle the
present petitioner with rigors of the criminal proceedings. The
complaint, on the face of it, more or less under Sections 497 and
498(A) of Indian Penal Code or other provision, which is sought to
be invoked, has to lay upon the averments made in the complaint. In
the instant case, the perusal of the complaint does not suggest any
overt act so as to rope in the petitioner for the offence as
alleged. Therefore, present complaint is quashed, qua present
petitioner only.
At
this stage, it is required to be noted that in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.13244 of 2010, on 20.12.2010, this
Court (Coram: Mr.M.R.Shah, J.) has quashed the complaint, qua
accused Nos.3 to 5 of the complainant viz. Nileshbhai Bhimjibhai
Kalani, Nehal Kalani and Nipulbhai Bhimjibhai Kalani. Learned
advocate for the petitioner stated at the bar at that time of that
petition, present petitioner was not the applicant, therein.
Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
[S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.]
..mitesh..
Top