Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1506/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1506 of 2010
=========================================================
DINESHBHAI
RATILAL THUMMAR, COMMITTEE MEMBER OF SAURASHTRA & 11 -
Applicant(s)
Versus
JAGDISHBHAI
SHAMBHUBHAI DUDHAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
TANUJA N KACHCHHI for
Applicant(s) : 1,11 - 12.MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA for Applicant(s) : 1,11
- 12.
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 17/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The learned Counsel
for the petitioners pointed out that this Court has passed an order
dated 21.01.2010, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.11085 of
2009, quashing the same complaint. She has further stated that the
original complainant is also present before the Court. He also
supports the quashing petition and has filed an affidavit before the
trial Court, which is produced at Page-33 of the compilation.
2. On the above basis,
the petitioners seek quashing of the complaint at Annexure-A ,
bearing Criminal Case No.31 of 2009, dated 08.04.2009, filed before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli and M. Case No.9/09,
dated 15.04.2009, filed before Amreli City Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506(2) read with
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. By order dated
21.01.2010, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11085 of
2009, the prayer for quashing was accepted, making following
observations:
Rule. Learned APP
Ms. Shah waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr.
RJ Patel for Mr.TR Savani waives service of rule on behalf of
respondent No.1.
Petitioners seek
quashing of complaint at annexure A filed by respondent No.1 herein.
The said complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate alleging
commission of offence punishable under sections 406, 408, 420 etc.
read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Counsel for the parties
submit that the issues have been resolved between the parties. A
copy of the affidavit dated 1.7.09 filed before the learned
Magistrate is also produced on record. In the said affidavit, the
complainant has stated, inter alia, that he had filed the complaint
out of some misunderstanding. However, with the intervention of the
elders of the family, misunderstanding has been removed and he
therefore does not want proceed with the complaint. Apparently, in
the meantime the charge has also been filed.
Since the allegations
are pertaining to internal disputes between the complainant and the
petitioners, in view of the compromise between the parties, I see no
possibility of recording any conviction. No useful purpose will be
served in proceeding further with the complaint and the trial arising
out of the same. However, the complainant had apparently filed the
complaint and shortly thereafter withdrew the same presumably on his
demand being satisfied by the petitioners. Statement of the
complainant that the complaint was filed on account of some
misunderstanding and that such misunderstanding has been removed with
the intervention of the elders cannot be accepted on its face value.
In
the result, though complaint at Annexure A and the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, respondent No.1 is
directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the State
by way of costs.
4. In this petition,
the request being similar, the prayer for quashing is accepted,
subject to the condition that the petitioners and the original
complainant shall jointly deposit Rs.10,000/-, with the State
Legal Services Authority, within a period of TWO WEEKS,
from today. The complaint at Annexure-A , bearing
Criminal Case No.31 of 2009, dated 08.04.2009, filed before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli and M. Case No.9/09, dated
15.04.2009, filed before Amreli City Police Station, are QUASHED.
The office shall place the matter before the Court, if the accused do
not deposit the same before the Court. Rule is made absolute.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top