Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/46/2005 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 46 of 2005
=========================================================
MAHESHKUMAR
DITABHAI MACHAR & 4 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
YM THAKKAR for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 5.
Mr.L.R.Pujari, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
UM SHASTRI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 15/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Following
order was passed by this Court {(C.K.Buch,J, (as he then was)} on
26.7.2005:
“Heard
ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. PM Thakkar for ld. Counsel Mr. YM Thakkar for the
petitioners and ld. APP Mr. Pujari for respondent No.1 State.
Undisputedly,
the victim girl and petitioner No.1 accused are well-qualified and I
am told that they are holding Diploma in Engineering. Ld.APP Mr.
Pujari has fairly admitted that the victim girl, in her statement,
has clearly stated that she had voluntarily left her parental home
and left with boy and at present she is living her life as a
legally-wedded wife of petitioner No.1. So, without commenting on the
merits of the case placed before the Court, this Court is inclined
to admit the Cri. Rev. Application. The Court also can not ignore one
major aspect that at present the victim girl is a mother of a child
out of wedlock with petitioner No.1 husband.
Hence,
Rule. Ld. APP Mr. LR Pujari appears and waives service of Rule for
respondent No.1 State.
Pending
the hearing and final disposal of the Cri.
Rev. Application, the proceedings of Sessions case No.386/2004
pending before the Sessions Court, Dahod arising out of CR No.
I.41/2003 registered with Dahod Town Police Station, shall remained
stayed.
D.S.
Permitted.”
This
Court has gone through the order passed below the discharge
application wherein the Sessions Court has observed that the victim
is staying with the accused as wife and husband and the during the
wedlock, one child is also born. As per the above referred order
also, the petitioner no.1 and the victim are residing as husband and
wife. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that to continue the
criminal proceedings is nothing but harassment to the petitioners.
In
view of the above, this revision application is allowed. The judgment
and order dated 28.l2.2004 passed below Exh.5 in Sessions Case No.386
of 2004 is hereby quashed and set aside, the application for
discharge given by the petitioners herein is hereby allowed and the
petitioners are discharged from the charges levelled against them.
(
M.D.Shah, J )
srilatha
Top