Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2834/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2834 of 2010
=========================================================
GAURAV
PRABHAT S/O JEEVAN PRABHAT JAIN & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
SV
RAJU ASSOCIATES for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
Mr L R Pujari, addl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 30/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
Mr S.V. Raju, learned Senior Counsel with Mr Chetan Pandya, learned
Advocate for the applicants.
2. Mr
S V Raju has invited attention of this court to various proceedings
initiated by the parties and reference is made to a compromise,
agreement executed in presence of respectable persons from both the
parties dated 24.9.2009, statement and affidavit of father of the
girl and deposition of the complainant-wife before the learned
District Judge, Ludhiana dated 30.9.2009 at page 75 of this
application and also filing of petition under section 13 B of the
Hindu Marriage Act before the court of learned District and Sessions
Judge, Ludhiana. The complainant-wife has also filed Hindu Marriage
Petition No.93/09 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar
under section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the judgment
dated 30.1.2010 by which the marriage between the petitioner and the
complainant is dissolved. It is also submitted before this court
that , the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the
District Court at Ludhiana by Demand Draft No.689342 dated
25.9.2009 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana.
3. In
view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing
but an abuse of process of law and it deserves to be quashed and set
aside. In support of his case, reliance is placed on a decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant v
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [(2008)
9 SCC 677).
4. Considering
the above aspects, at this stage, prima facie, I am of the opinion
that the case deserves consideration and hence,
RULE.
Ad-interim relief in terms of para 12 (b) till further orders.
NOTICE as to interim relief returnable on 23rd
April, 2010. Direct Service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
msp
Top