Gujarat High Court High Court

Pathan vs State on 3 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Pathan vs State on 3 August, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8645/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8645 of 2010
 

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


 

PATHAN
FIROZKHAN @ MUNNA AMANUKHAN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR MAULIK NANAVATI, APP
for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR D.K.Chaudhary for Respondent(s) :
2, 
========================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 03/08/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Rule.

Learned APP, Shri Maulik Nanavati, and Shri D.K.Chaudhary, waive
service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2
respectively.

Counsel
for the parties stated that after filing of the complaint, both the
sides have decided to resolve the disputes. All issues have been
amicably settled. The complainant does not wish to press the
charges. In particular, they pointed out that one injured witness,
namely, Shri Manilal Devla, is also present before the Court and
files an Affidavit that he also accepts the settlement.

Considering
above development, considering the nature of allegations in the
complaint and the fact that both sides have decided to resolve the
dispute, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served
in permitting further investigation and trial into the allegations
contained in the complaint at Annexure-A being C.R.No.I-108/2010
registered before Dahod (Rural) Police Station under Sections 147,
148, 149, 324, 325, 427 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act, the same is, therefore, quashed.

Rule
is made absolute accordingly.

(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)

(ashish)

   

Top