Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/3755/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3755 of 2010
=========================================================
KANTILAL
JECHAND SHAH & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RS SANJANWALA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS ML SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 22/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioners-original-accused
seek quashing of complaint Annexure A bearing C.R.No.I-1/2010 filed
before Mahuva Police Station by respondent No.2 herein.
At
the outset, counsel for the petitioners candidly pointed out that
both the petitioners had previously approached this Court by
filing separate quashing petitions, but withdrawn the same. He
tendered the order dated 13.1.2010 passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No.259 of 2010 in case of petitioner No.2 which reads as
under:
Learned
advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the
petition keeping all contentions open.
Permission
is granted. Disposed of as withdrawn.
Similarly
he also tenders another order dated 12.3.2010 passed in Criminal
Misc. Application No.2356 of 2010 in case of petitioner No.1, which
reads as under:
Learned
counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this
application, at this stage. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
This
application stands disposed of as withdrawn.
It
can thus be seen that both the petitioners had separately
approached the High Court in quashing petitions and subsequently
withdrawn the same. In case of petitioner No.2, such withdrawal
was unconditional and in case of petitioner No.1, though it is
stated that he was granted permission to withdraw the petition at
that stage, counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any
change in circumstances or different stage at which the petitioner
No.1 also could have maintained a fresh petition.
In
so far as order dated 13.1.2010 is concerned, the petition was
heard before me and after detailed arguments, counsel had withdrawn
the petition as can be seen from the order itself. No case for
reopening the issues arise at this stage. Therefore, without
permitting the counsel for the petitioners to address the court on
merits, this petition is not entertained, once again keeping all
defences of the petitioners open.
With
the above observations, the petition is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top