Gujarat High Court High Court

Sanjaykumar vs State on 12 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Sanjaykumar vs State on 12 March, 2010
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/7836/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 7836 of 2009
 

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

SANJAYKUMAR
DHANRAJ JAIN & 6 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

============================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR HARDIK B GUPTA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 7. 
MR KARTIK PANDYA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR TARAK DAMANI for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=============================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 12/03/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

Heard
Mr. Gupta, learned advocate for the applicants.

Mr.

Gupta, learned advocate for the applicants places reliance in the
case of Y.Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai
and Anr.
[AIR 2004 SC 4286] and submits that cause of action
includes circumstances forming the infraction of the right or
immediate occasion of the action and according to learned advocate
for the applicants marriage took place in the State of Rajasthan and
in the complaint it is stated that the complainant has settled in
Ahmedabad and thereafter also alleged offences continued.

In
view of the above, it is submitted that interim relief granted
earlier to continue till final disposal of the petition.

Mr.

Damani, learned advocate for respondent No.2 submits that offences
alleged is a continuous offence and in the complaint sufficient
averments are made to the extent that respondent No.2 was subjected
to mental and physical torture and the applicants have time and again
inflicted cruelty upon respondent No.2. That, the above conduct of
the applicants continued from the marriage till filing of the
complaint and, therefore, the police station as well as the Court
will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and proceed with
the trial.

Having
heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, prima facie I am
inclined to accept the submissions of learned advocate for the
applicants which are based on the decision of the Apex Court in
Y.Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr.
(supra) and, therefore, Admit.

Interim
relief granted earlier to continue till final disposal of the
application.

[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]

//smita//

   

Top