Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/10636/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10636 of 2010
=========================================================
MAYURBHAI
AMRATLAL SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL H RATHOD for
Applicant(s) : 1,MR NIRAV K PADHIYAR for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KP
RAVAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MRUDUL M BAROT for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 17/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
RULE.
Learned A.P.P. waives service of rule on behalf of the
respondent-State and Mr.Barot, learned Counsel, waives service on
behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant.
Petitioner
is the original accused. He seeks quashing of criminal
complaint being C.R. No.I-224 of 2010 registered at Palanpur City
Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha (at Annexure-A) on the ground that
no offence is disclosed and on additional ground that the complainant
does not wish to press the charges any further.
Upon
perusal of the complaint it emerges that the complainant young lady
alleged that the petitioner-original accused, by giving her false
promise of getting married and keeping her well after marriage,
exploited her physically. He, however, turned around and on this
premise the said complaint for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code has been registered.
Along
with the petition, the petitioner produced an affidavit, jointly
signed by the complainant as
well as the petitioner
before a public notary on 27.02.2010, stating that all disputes have
been resolved between the
parties. The petitioner and the complainant are to be friends and
even the elders of the family have agreed that in future at the
occasion of marriage, they would consider for getting married.
It
appears that Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been wrongly
applied, which provides for punishment for criminal breach of trust.
Prima facie for section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, I have serious
doubt whether it can be applied. However, this final question need
not be decided in this petition, particularly when on record the
petitioner has produced writing of the complainant disclosing that
the issues have been resolved between
the parties. It is true that
the impugned
complaint has been lodged after the said declaration, however, with
respect to the contents of such affidavit, no dispute has been raised
on behalf of respondent No.2-original complainant.
I
have perused the contents of the said affidavit. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned complaint (at
Annexure-A) is required to be quashed particularly when I find no
offence even otherwise disclosed and the offence would be one at the
most under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code.
In
the result, criminal complaint being C.R. No.I-224 of 2010 registered
at Palanpur City Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha (at Annexure-A) is
hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.
Sd/-
[AKIL
KURESHI, J]
***
Bhavesh*
Top