Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/194720/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1947 of 2008
=========================================================
GAMETI
SUMITRABEN SHANKERBHAI - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK GADHAVI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR LS PUJARI ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
UNSERVED-REFUSED (N) for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 17/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. None
present for respondent No.4, who is the original complainant and
father of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court
for assertion of her fundamental rights and prayed to be released
from Women Protection House where she is lodged by order dated
10.03.2008 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Idar.
It was submitted by learned counsel Mr.Gadhvi, appearing for the
petitioner, that, according to the FIR registered as C.R.No.35 of
2008 in Idar Police Station, the accused person had eloped with the
petitioner and a complaint alleging offences under sections 363, 366
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made by the father of the
petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner and the accused person were
produced before the Court and the petitioner was sent to Women
Protection House, Himatnagar, while the accused person was
subsequently released on bail. The petitioner was specifically asked
whether she wanted to return to her parental home and she had refused
to so return. Therefore, she was sent to Women Protection House for
her protection, till further orders. Therefore, the petitioner was
entitled to move the Court for a fresh order for her release and, in
fact, application therefor was made but it was stated to have been
forwarded by learned JMFC to the Sessions Court, Himatnagar.
2. It
was submitted by learned A.P.P. that, since the sessions case was now
registered as Sessions Case No.98 of 2008 and the Sessions Court was
seized of the criminal case and the petitioner was an important
witness, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to move that
Court for the purpose of necessary relief. Learned counsel Mr.Gadhvi
emphasised that it was the fundamental right of the petitioner to
enjoy her liberties as she has attained the age of 18 and she could
not be kept in the protection house without her consent. It was,
however, seen that the original complainant, father and natural
guardian of the petitioner, could not be heard due to his absence
before this Court and it may be proper for the Court, in the interest
of the petitioner herself, that appropriate directions are issued as
regards her protection and continued living in the protection house.
It was also submitted by learned A.P.P., on instructions, that the
Sessions Court was seized of the matter and, in fact, the petitioner
was called in the Court on 11.9.2008 pursuant to her application
dated 26.8.2008. Therefore, the petitioner is only required to press
that application which appears to be pending before learned
Additional Sessions Judge and 5th Fast Track Court at Himatnagar.
3. Under
the above circumstances, the petition is disposed with the
observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to press the
aforesaid application dated 26.8.2008 or make a fresh application and
that Court may, after hearing the petitioner, learned A.P.P. and the
original complainant, if he remains present either personally or
through a pleader, make appropriate order in accordance with law
keeping in view the fundamental rights of the petitioner as an adult.
The application of the petitioner should be decided as expeditiously
as practicable and preferably within one week of the petitioner
applying for immediate hearing. With these observations, Rule is
discharged with no order as to costs. Direct service.
Sd/-
(
D.H.Waghela, J.)
(KMG
Thilake)
Top