Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Suthar vs State on 20 December, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/11351/2010	 5/ 5	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11351 of 2010
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

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

 

SUTHAR
RAMESHBHAI PUJARAM - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
DK CHAUDHARI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR M.R. MENGDEY, ADDL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR PRATIK B BAROT for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/12/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

RULE.

Mr.M.R. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
of notic of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr.Pratik
Barot, learned advocate waives the service of notice on behalf
of the respondent No.2.

In
the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the
learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties,
present petition is taken up for final hearing.

Present
petition has been preferred by the petitioner

– original accused No.2, under sec.482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to quash and set aside the impugned
complaint/FIR being CR No.I-151 of 2010 registered with Chanasma
Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 394, 323,
504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and for the offence
punishable under sec.135 of Bombay Police Act and for the offences
punishable under sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (Act No.33 of
1989) (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act” for
convenience).

Mr.Chaudhary,
learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner – original
accused No.2 has stated at the bar that the petitioner is
pressing and/or praying to quash and set aside the aforesaid First
Information Report in question so far as the offence under
sec.3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act only and he does not press the
present petition to quash and set aside the impugned FIR for the
rest of the offences.

Mr.Chaudhary,
learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
taken the Court to the necessary averments made in the impugned FIR
against the petitioner

– original accused No.2 for the offences punishable
under sec.3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act and has also taken the
Court to other correspondences taken place earlier by other persons,
submitting that the original complainant had threatened in past
also that he will file false complaint for the offence under the
Atrocities Act.

After
making some submissions and looking to the nature of allegations
made against the petitioner

– accused No.2 in so far as offence punishable under
sec.3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act is concerned, Mr.Barot, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 –
original complainant has submitted that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, if the impugned FIR of the offences
punishable under sec.3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act against the
petitioner

– original accused No.2, is quashed and set aside, he
has no objection and for that, he does not invite any further
reasoned order. However, he has requested to make suitable
observations that the same shall be QUA petitioner
herein – original accused No.2 only and the
other accused, against whom specific averments and allegations are
made in the complaints, shall not be entitled to take benefit of
the same.

Mr.M.R.

Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass
appropriate order in so far as the offence punishable under
sec.3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act against the petitioner
is concerned.

In
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the
allegations made against the petitioner

– original accused No.2 in the impugned FIR for the
offence punishable under sec.3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act and
considering the earlier correspondence annexed with the petition,
and considering the stand taken by Mr.Pratik Barot, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 –
original complainant, it appears that to continue the complaint
against the petitioner
for the offence punishable under sec.3(1)(10) of the
Atrocities Act would be abuse of process of law and therefore, the
impugned FIR qua for the offence punishable under sec.3(1)(10) of
the Atrocities Act against the petitioner
deserves to be quashed and set aside.

While
quashing the impugned FIR qua for the offence punishable under
sec.3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act against the petitioner,
this Court has not passed reasoned order, as the learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested not to
assign reasons, as the investigation is going on and in case of
filing of the Chargesheet, further trial is to be conducted.

In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned
First Information
Report
being CR No.I-151
of 2010 filed by the respondent No.2 – original complainant
with Chanasma Police Station against petitioner
herein –

accused No.2 is quashed and set in so far as the offences alleged
against the petitioner
herein –

original accused No.2, for the punishable under sec.3(1)(10) of the
Atrocities Act QUA petitioner
herein –

original accused herein only and the rest of the First Information
Report in question shall stand as it is for the other offences and
for other offences, the impugned First Information Report is
not quashed and set aside and the petitioner
herein – original complainant will have to face
the trial for the offences other than the offence under
sec.3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. This order is passed in view of
the peculiar facts of the case and in view of the stand taken by the
learned
advocate appearing on behalf of
the respondent No.2 – original accused for the
petitioner
herein -original accused No.2 only and hence the
other accused shall not claim and shall not be entitled to claim
benefit of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.

Direct
Service is permitted.

[M.R.

SHAH, J.]

rafik

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.106 seconds.