Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/117/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No.117 of 2011
=========================================
KALPESH
HARESHBHAI THAKAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
JYOTIBEN
RAKESHBHAI JANI & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance:
MR
PM LAKHANI for
Applicant(s): 1,
MR VH KANARA for Applicant(s): 1,
MS
DIMPLE L JOSHI for Applicant(s): 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s): 1 - 3.
MS MEGHA JANI with MS SHRUTI S PATHAK for
Respondent(s): 1 - 3.
MR LR PUJARI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Respondent(s): 4,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date
: 15/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Mr.
P.M. Lakhani, learned advocate for the applicant states that in the
impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed
the merits of the case and made observations on the merits. He
submits that he seeks permission to withdraw the application,
however, the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge on the merits of the case may be set aside.
2. On
the other hand, Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned advocate for the
respondents states that the learned Judge has only recorded the
arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective
parties and has not recorded any findings on the merits of the case
and as such, the request made by the learned advocate for the
applicant may not be acceded to.
3. In
the light of the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for
the respective parties, it appears that interest of justice would be
served if it is observed that the observations made by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 5th
March, 2011 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Applications No.64 &
65 of 2011 whether in the form of recording of arguments of the
learned advocates for the respective parties or on merits shall not,
in any manner, prejudice the case of either of the parties in any of
the proceedings in respect of the FIR in question. Subject to the
aforesaid, the application is rejected as withdrawn. Notice is
discharged with no order as to costs.
(
Harsha Devani, J. )
hki
Top