Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/2502/2003 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 2502 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SHARDABEN
KESHAVLAL PANCHAL & 3 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ZUBIN F BHARDA for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 4.
MS CM SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
HL
PATEL ADVOCATES for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 07/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Petitioners
are the original accused. They seek quashing of complaint Annexure
A being C.R.I-No.117/2003 filed by respondent No.2 herein at Vapi
Town Police Station. In the complaint, it is alleged mainly that
the complainant had agreed to purchase a plot of land from petitioner
Nos.1 to 3. She paid up the agreed amount and documents were also
executed in her favour. However, later on, it was revealed to her
that on the basis of power of attorney given by the accused with
respect to the same land, certain transactions were carried out by
the third party.
Learned
advocate Mr.Bharda appearing for the petitioners drew my attention
to various documents on record. Previously, on behalf of HL Patel
Advocates, it was conveyed to the Court that they have no
instruction to appear on behalf of the complainant any further.
However, it appears that no formal note was filed and no permission
has so far been granted by the Court. Be that as it may, it was
conveyed today on behalf of HL Patel advocates that they have not
received any instructions from the complainant despite best
efforts.
From
the documents on record, it appears that with respect to the subject
matter land, the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 previously collected a
sum of Rs.1,84,000/- from one Abdulrahim Karodia and simultaneously,
power of attorney was also given. However, subsequently the amount
was repaid and the power of attorney was also recalled, despite which
he tried to enter into transaction of the said laid and one Abdulla
Gulam Rasul filed Special Civil Suit No.52 of 2003 joining the
complainant as one of the defendants. Counsel for the petitioners,
however, pointed out that subsequently, the plaintiff withdrew the
suit in the year 2004 itself and no further proceedings are carried.
The complainant is thus enjoying peaceful possession and ownership
of the land in question.
Considering
these developments and the fact that the complainant has also not
instructed her advocate as also considering the attendant
circumstances, I am of the opinion that permitting further
investigation and trial into the complaint at Annexure A at this
distant point of time would be abuse of process of court. The
compliant at Annexure A bearing C.R.I-117/2003 of Vapi Town Police
Station is therefore quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top