Gujarat High Court High Court

Udayan vs State on 8 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Udayan vs State on 8 February, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/1311/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1311 of 2011
 

With


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1323 of 2011
 

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

UDAYAN
BRIJDAS MUKHERJEE & 3 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

======================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
PR ABICHANDANI for Applicants
 

Mr.
A.Y. Kogje for the complainant
 

Ms.
C.M. Shah, APP,  for respondent
No.1 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/02/2011 

 

 
COMMON
ORAL ORDER

1 Rule.

Service is waived.

2 At
the request of the learned advocates for the parties, both the
applications are heard together and disposed of by this common order:

3 In
Misc. Criminal Application No.1311 of 2011, the applicants prayed for
the following relief:

Be
pleased to pass suitable order/s in exercise of powers under section
482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure by quashing an d setting aside
the complaint being I-C.R. No.286 of 2010 registered with the Gujarat
University Police Station.

4 In
Misc. Criminal Application No.1323 of 2011, the applicants prayed for
the following relief:

Be
pleased to pass suitable order/s in exercise of powers under section
482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure by quashing an d setting aside
the proceedings being Criminal Misc. Application No.396of 2010 filed
and pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,Court No.13,
Ahmedabad filed under the provisions of Sections 12 and 16 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

5 Both
the parties have produced consent terms dated 8th February
2011 signed by them for amicable settlement with regard to the
pending disputes and other disputes before this Court and other
Courts, which is ordered to be taken on record. Besides, respondent
No.2, original complainant, Diti Pundrik Vyas, aged 32 years, has
shown affidavit dated 8.2.2011 wherein she has stated on oath that
the dispute is arising out of matrimonial relationship and the
parties have decided to bury the hatchet and in view of amicable
settlement, she has no objection if the impugned complaints are
quashed. She is personally present in the Court and she has
reiterated what is stated on oath in the above affidavit.

6 Having
heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the
relevant records pertaining to the subject matter and in view of the
fact that the dispute arising out of matrimonial relationship is
settled by the parties by arriving at amicable settlement, I am of
the view that continuance of the proceedings impugned in both the
applications against each other would create mental agony and undue
hardship to the parties and, therefore, to secure ends of justice, I
deem it just and proper to exercise powers under Section 482 of the
Code and quash the impugned complaints in both the applications qua
the applicants. The consent terms which is ordered to be taken on
record be treated as part of this order and the parties are directed
to abide by the same. Both the applications are allowed accordingly.
The impugned complaints in both the applications are quashed qua the
applicants. Rule is made absolute in each application accordingly.
Direct service is permitted.

(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)

(swamy)

   

Top