Gujarat High Court High Court

Popatbhai vs State on 6 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Popatbhai vs State on 6 April, 2011
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice R.M.Chhaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/368/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 368 of 2011
 

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

 

POPATBHAI
SHIVABHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
CHETAN B RAVAL for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR DC SEJPAL ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2, 4, 
MR BC RUPERA
for Respondent(s) : 3,5 -
6. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/03/2011  
 
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

The
corpus is present before us. She states that she has come with
respondent No.3-Jigar Chhaganlal Makvana. She states that she is
staying with him as she has married him. She firmly indicated her
wish, will and desire to continue the relationship with respondent
No.3 and stay with him and not to go with her parents.

2. The
petitioner, father of the corpus, was also present before us. He has
grievance against the action taken by the corpus, but, ultimately,
has accepted the relationship. He has expressed his anxiety about a
case lodged against him and his relatives under the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Respondent
No.3-Jigar and his father Chhaganbhai-respondent No.5 are also before
us. They are happy by the stand taken by the petitioner about
accepting the relationship, though half-heartedly, but, in principle,
they have shown their readiness to resolve amicably the criminal case
instituted against the petitioner and his relatives.

4. In
light of the above developments, learned advocate Mr CB Raval does
not invite any speaking order, but seeks to permit him to withdraw
the petition. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The petition
stands disposed of as withdrawn. Notice is discharged.

5. The
amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited with the Registry of this Court be
refunded to the petitioner.

(A.L.

DAVE, J.)

(R.M.

CHHAYA, J.)

zgs/-

   

Top