Gujarat High Court High Court

Kamlaben vs State on 8 July, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Kamlaben vs State on 8 July, 2008
Author: H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1346/2008	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1346 of 2008
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

KAMLABEN
@ TASLIMBANU DHANJIBHAI MAKWANA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
AZIZ AN ALVI for Applicant(s) : 1, 
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/07/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
the learned advocate Mr.A.N.Alvi and learned APP Mr.Patel for the
State.

2. This
is the petition preferred under Section 226 of the Constitution of
India with a prayer to direct the respondents to refrain from any act
prejudicial to the lives of the petitioner, her husband and
her-in-laws. The second prayer is to provide security to the lives of
petitioner as well as her-in-laws.

3. It
has been submitted by the learned advocate representing the
petitioner that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are acting to cause harm
to the life of petitioner and harassing her for no fault. It is
submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that application
was preferred before the police commissioner against the respondents,
but nothing has been done till this date and therefore, the
petitioner is constrained to file the present petition.

4. On
perusal of the application produced vide Exh.D, applicant has not
even given complete address of the respondent and the application
Exh.D is bereft of necessary particulars. It is submitted that, if
the necessary order in this regard is not passed then petitioner and
his family members would be arrested by the respondents. Therefore,
the prayer has been set out in the petition to grant protection.

5. As
against this, learned APP representing the State submitted that
petitioner would be liberty to file an application before the P.I.
Sardarnagar Police Station seeking necessary protection.

6. In
view of the above, it would be open for the petitioner to approach
the P.I. Sardarnagar or the Police Commissioner by giving all
necessary particulars in that regard in the application.

7. With
this observations, the petition is liable to rejected and the same is
rejected.

(H.B.ANTANI,
J.)

ashish//

   

Top