Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/2365/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2365 of 2009
=========================================
MADHUBEN
W/O VRAJLAL PARBATBHAI PANKHANIA
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
SUBRAMANIAM IYER for
the Petitioner
MR DEVANG VYAS, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent Nos.1-2
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent Nos.3 -
4.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 22/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. With
regard to an affidavit dated 20.01.2010 filed by the petitioner
Madhuben wife of Shri Vrajlal Prabatbhai Pankhania, Mr.Vyas, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, has sought time to take instructions in
the matter. Today, he placed a copy of letter dated 22.01.2010 on
record, which is sent to the office of the Government Pleader from
the Naroda Police Station. The letter is accompanied by a statement
containing details of the phone calls made by one mobile number to
another mobile number which are mentioned in the application
given by the son of the petitioner to the police.
2. In
affidavit, in para-6, it is stated that the son of the petitioner
received a missed call on his mobile number 9714365433 from
mobile number 09549375153 around 06.30 pm on 01.11.2009. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor invited attention of the Court to the
statement containing the details of the calls made by mobile number
09737672019, this is the number mentioned in the application given to
the police by Harish Parbatbhai Pankhania, son of the petitioner.
This number is stated to be his mobile number. It is stated in the
application that he had received a missed call from mobile number –
09549525153.
In
light of the telephone record produced by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, aforesaid statement made in para-6 of the
affidavit stands negatived. That being so, the petitioner is liable
to be prosecuted for filing a false affidavit before this Court with
a view to obtain a favourable order from the Court. However, taking
a lenient view in the matter, as the deponent is the complainant and
the complaint is about the missing of her daughter, no further action
is taken. However, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court
refuses to entertain this petition as the petitioner has not stated
the correct facts before this Court.
3. Mr.Iyer,
learned advocate for the petitioner, requested that while the Court
is not entertaining the petition, the police authorities be asked to
proceed in the matter in accordance with law and without being
influenced by the fact that the Court has not entertained this
petition.
The
request is granted.
It
is made clear that the police authorities are under a lawful duty to
proceed in the matter in accordance with law and keeping in mind that
the daughter is missing and the mother is to be helped.
4. With
the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. Notice is
discharged.
A
copy of the application filed before the police be placed on record
along with the report filed today.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
(J.C.Upadhyaya,
J.)
*Shitole
Top