Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1549/2006 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1549 of 2006
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
KANTILAL
JADVJIBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
CL SONI for the Applicants
MS CM SHAH,
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No.1
MR MEHUL H RATHOD
for Respondent No.2
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 19/03/2009
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioners are before this Court praying that:-
9. [B] be
pleased to quash the complaint and the FIR at annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’ to
this petition registered as Inquiry Case No.1/06 in the court of Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class at Halvad and in Halvad Police
Station u/s 494, 498-A and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by
exercising the powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973;
2. Mr.Soni,
learned advocate for the applicants invited attention of the Court to
the facts of the case, i.e. respondent No.2 original complainant
had married to applicant No.1 original accused No.1 before 33
years. It is the case of respondent No.2 herself that about 31 years
before, she was driven away from the marital home and she was
residing with her son Shri Navinbhai Kantilal Patel at her
parental home at village Kherva; that on 15.01.2006, when she had
gone to Halvad to her relatives’ place for some social work, she
noticed an invitation card which was of applicant No.1, stating
therein that marriage of son of Pushpaben and Kantilal Jadvjibhai
Patel applicants herein is scheduled on 19.01.2006. Therefore,
complaint was filed under Sections 494, 498-A and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The
learned advocate for the applicants submitted that in the year 1977,
respondent No.2 had filed maintenance application, stating there in
that applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 had married and were living as
husband and wife; that in the year 1986, respondent No.2 filed
enhancement application, seeking increase in the maintenance amount,
therein also, it was stated that applicant No.1 had married to
applicant No.2 and they have three children. Again in the year 1998,
respondent No.2 filed enhancement application, again stating the
above facts. Not only that, in the year 1987, respondent No.2 filed
a criminal complaint against the present applicants, alleging this
very offence/s in which the applicants were acquitted.
On
the face of it, respondent No.2 original complainant has not
stated anything about the material except the invitation card, on the
basis of which she drew conclusion that applicant Nos.1 and 2 are
married to each other. The fact that respondent No.2 had filed
various applications and also a complaint against the applicants,
goes to show that the complaint in question is not a bonafide one and
the same is filed only with a view to harass the applicants.
4. In
the result, the application is allowed. The complaint being Inquiry
Case No.1 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Halvad and complaint being M.Case No.1 of 2006 registered
before Halvad Police Station are quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top