Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/9173/2009 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 9173 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
PRATIPALSINH
PRAVINSINH CHUDASMA @ PINTU & 6 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 7.
MR. K.P. RAVAL ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,
MS
MAMTA R VYAS for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 27/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of respondent no.2-original complainant and Shri K.P. Raval,
learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent
State. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the
consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the
application is taken up for final hearing today.
2. Present
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has
been preferred by the petitioners-original accused to quash and set
aside the impugned complaint/FIR being CR. No.II-3039 of 2009
registered with the Dhangadhra Police Station filed by respondent
no.2.
3. Shri
Dagli, learned advocate for the petitioners no.1 to 4 and 7 does not
press present application. Hence, present application is dismissed as
withdrawn so far as petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and 7 are concerned.
Therefore, this petition is required to be considered qua the
petitioner nos. 5 and 6 only.
4. Heard
the learned advocate for the petitioner nos. 5 and 6 and Ms. Mamta
Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-original complainant
and considered the averments and allegations against the petitioner
nos. 5 and 6 in the complaint. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and when petitioner nos. 5 and 6 were
residing separately and there is a broad consensus between the
learned advocates, let the impugned complaint / FIR be quashed and
set aside qua petitioner nos. 5 and 6 only and without prejudice to
the rights rights and contentions of the respective parties qua other
accused persons. Learned advocates for the respective parties do not
invite any further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside
the impugned FIR so far as petitioner nos. 5 and 6 are concerned.
Hence, this Court is not further assigning any reasoned order. Even
otherwise, this Court is prima facie satisfied that there is no case
against petitioner nos. 5 and 6 for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 498(A) and 114 of of Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. In
view of the above and broad consensus between the parties the
impugned complaint being CR. No.II-3039 of 2009 registered with the
Dhangadhra Police Station lodged by respondent no.2 herein-original
complainant is hereby quashed and so far as petitioner nos. 5 and 6
only. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and
contention of the respective parties qua other accused persons. Rule
is made absolute accordingly so far as petitioner nos. 5 and 6 are
concerned and petition is dismissed as withdrawn qua rest of the
petitioners.
(M.R.SHAH,
J.)
kaushik
Top