{"id":74444,"date":"2008-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-03T10:52:04","modified_gmt":"2016-10-03T05:22:04","slug":"chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.MA\/357\/2006\t 15\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nMISC.APPLICATION No. 357 of 2006\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n==========================================\n\n\n \n\nCHAVDA\nPRAHLADSINH @ DILIPSINHRAJUJI & 10 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPR ABICHANDANI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 11. \nMR\nLB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR HR\nPRAJAPATI for Respondent(s) : 2, \nM\/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for\nRespondent(s) : 2, \n==========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 01\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
This
\n\tapplication was heard for admission as well as on the question of
\n\tinterim relief.  However, as the matter was argued at length, by the
\n\tconsent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is
\n\ttaken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
Rule.\n<\/p>\n
\t Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service
\n\tof notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 ?  State of Gujarat
\n\tand Mr.H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate waives service of notice of
\n\trule on behalf of respondent No.2 ?  original complainant.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfacts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent No.2 herein
\n\thad lodged a complaint against the petitioners herein for the
\n\toffences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 114 of the Indian
\n\tPenal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
\n\twhich came to be registered as a First Information Report vide
\n\tBapunagar Police Station I ?  C.R. No.8\/2006 on 4th
\n\tJanuary, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.1 – complainant,
\n\tpetitioner No.2 is the father in-law of the complainant, petitioner
\n\tNo.6 is the mother in-law of the complainant, petitioners No.3, 4
\n\tand 5 are the brothers of the petitioner No.1, petitioners No.7 and
\n\t8 are the sisters of petitioner No.1, petitioners No.9 and 10 are
\n\tthe brother in-laws of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 is the
\n\tsister in-law of petitioner No.1.  It is the aforesaid First
\n\tInformation Report of which quashment is sought for by this
\n\tapplication under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
\n\t1973 (the Code).\n<\/p>\n
Mr.P.R.Abichandani,
\n\tlearned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the
\n\tcomplaint is filed after a period of six months from the date of the
\n\tlast incident, whereby it is alleged that the petitioners herein had
\n\tdemanded Rs.50,000\/- to permit the respondent No.2 to reside with
\n\tthem.  It is submitted that most of the allegations in the complaint
\n\tpertain to a period prior to seven years from the date of the
\n\tcomplaint.  It is, accordingly, submitted that the complaint is bad
\n\ton the ground of delay and laches and hence, in view of the bar of
\n\tSection 468 of the Code, the complaint itself is not maintainable.
\n\tIt is further submitted that in view of the disputes between the
\n\tpetitioner No.1 and the complainant, the parties had entered into a
\n\tsettlement which was recorded by a compromise deed dated 21st
\n\tMay, 2004 which was executed in the presence of leaders of the
\n\tcommunity, reputed persons and elders of the family and
\n\twell-wishers, whereby it was agreed that the petitioners were
\n\trequired to provide a separate house for the respondent No.2 wherein
\n\tthe respondent No.2 was to reside.  It was also recorded therein
\n\tthat the possession of the said house is handed over to the
\n\trespondent No.2.  It is submitted that it was also agreed between
\n\tthe parties that the petitioner No.1 was required to provide
\n\tRs.700\/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent No.2,
\n\twithout fail.  The petitioner No.1 was also required to provide the
\n\trespondent No.2 one and half Vighas of agricultural land, of which
\n\tshe would be an independent owner.  It had further been agreed that
\n\tthe respondent No.2 would be permitted to purchase buffaloes,
\n\ttowards which the petitioner No.1 would have to pay Rs.5,000\/-.  It
\n\twas also recorded therein that the parties would make efforts to
\n\trestore their marital relations and for which purpose, the parents
\n\tof the petitioner No.1 and others would ensure that the respondent
\n\tNo.2 is taken proper care of.  That neither of the parties would
\n\tconsider re-marriage or even make any attempts in respect of the
\n\tsame.  It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid settlement
\n\tarrived at between the parties, the respondent No.2 was residing
\n\tseparately.  That as the respondent No.2 had encroached upon half a
\n\tVigha more than the land to which she was entitled, the respondent
\n\tNo.2 had been requested to remove the encroachment.  That as she did
\n\tnot heed to the said request, the petitioner No.1 stopped making
\n\tpayment of Rs.700\/- per month towards maintenance.  It is submitted
\n\tthat it is only thereafter that the respondent No.2 has filed the
\n\tpresent complaint only with a view to exert pressure upon the
\n\tpetitioner No.1, and that the rest of the family members and the
\n\trelatives, including distant relatives, have also been roped into
\n\tthe complaint.  It is submitted that the allegations made in the
\n\tcomplaint are vague, false and concocted and are made only with the
\n\tmalafide intention of harassing the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis urged that the allegations made in the complaint have to be
\n\tweighed qua the circumstances in which the same have been made.  It
\n\tis submitted that when the petitioner No.1 has already given one and
\n\thalf Vigha of land to the respondent No.2 and has agreed to pay
\n\tmaintenance under the agreement as well as has given her a house for
\n\tresiding, it is too far fetched that subsequently he would demand
\n\tRs.50,000\/- at a later stage.  It is, accordingly, submitted that
\n\tthe allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently
\n\timprobable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
\n\tthat there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
\n\tpetitioners.  It is further submitted that, as stated by the
\n\tpetitioner No.1, he has deposited Rs.3,000\/- before this Court
\n\ttowards arrears of maintenance and has continued to pay the same
\n\tregularly.  It is, accordingly, submitted that a bare perusal of the
\n\tcomplaint shows that no offence as alleged can be said to have been
\n\tmade out, hence, the complaint in question is required to be quashed
\n\tqua all the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand, Mr.H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate for the
\n\trespondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the application and has
\n\tsubmitted that once the First Information Report discloses
\n\tcommission of an offence, no case is made out for intervention by
\n\tthis Court under Section 482 of the Code.  It is submitted that a
\n\tperusal of the complaint clearly shows that the respondent No.2 ?
\n\tcomplainant has been subjected to cruelty by the petitioners herein,
\n\tand that, there has been a demand for dowry amounting to Rs.50,000\/-
\n\tby all the petitioners herein, hence, no case is made out for
\n\tintervention by this Court.  Reliance is placed upon a decision of
\n\tthe Supreme Court in the case of Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas
\n\tAIR<\/a> 1999 SC 2071, to submit that cruelty is a continuing offence,
\n\tand  that the new starting point of limitation starts on the last
\n\tact of cruelty.  It is, accordingly, submitted that the last act of
\n\tcruelty was six months prior to the date of the offence, hence, the
\n\tsame is not barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.L.B.Dabhi,
\n\tlearned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that, in the
\n\tfacts of the present case, where the complaint discloses commission
\n\tof an offence, the investigation should be permitted to continue and
\n\tthat, no case is made made out to warrant any intervention by this
\n\tCourt in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt has considered the submissions advanced by the learned
\n\tadvocates for the parties and has perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthis juncture, it would be pertinent to refer to the allegations
\n\tmade in the complaint.  It is alleged in the complaint that the
\n\tcomplainant was residing with the petitioner No.1, his parents and
\n\this brothers and wives, and that, for a period of two years, they
\n\thad maintained good relations with her.  However, thereafter, when
\n\tshe gave birth to a daughter, they started harassing her mentally
\n\tand physically, however, she has suffered the same silently.  That
\n\tseven years prior to the lodging of the First Information Report,
\n\tshe was residing with her in-laws at Ahmedabad when the petitioners
\n\therein told that her parents did not give her anything towards dowry
\n\tand that, she had given birth to a daughter and she was, therefore,
\n\tunlucky for the house and saying so, had beaten her and thrown her
\n\tout of the house.  Since then, she was residing at her parental home
\n\tand had not returned to her matrimonial home.  That, thereafter,
\n\tafter two years, her younger brother had gone to leave at her
\n\tmatrimonial house, however, as the petitioners were not ready and
\n\twilling to keep her, she had to return with her brother.  That, on
\n\t21st May, 2004, persons from her parental home as well as
\n\tfrom her matrimonial home got together and as members of her
\n\tmatrimonial home were not ready and willing to keep her, an
\n\tagreement was entered into on a Rs.50\/- stamp paper that she would
\n\tbe provided with a house, one and half Vigha of land as well as
\n\tRs.700\/- per month towards maintenance.  That in terms of the
\n\tagreement, for a period of ten months, maintenance had been
\n\tprovided, as agreed.  However, thereafter, the same was stopped and
\n\thence, they had approached the witnesses to the said agreement who
\n\thad told them that it was for her to manage with her in-laws and
\n\tthat, they were not concerned with the same.  It is also alleged
\n\tthat six months prior to the date of the complaint, her brother
\n\tBharatsinh and her cousin Ghanshyamsinh Babusinh and Bhupatsinh had
\n\tgone to leave her at her matrimonial home at Ahmedabad.  At that
\n\ttime, all the petitioners herein were present at her matrimonial
\n\thome and they had told her that if she wants to reside in their
\n\thouse, she would have to bring Rs.50,000\/- towards dowry.  That she
\n\thad asked them that her mother is a widow and her brothers are
\n\tyoung, where would she get so much money from? At that point of
\n\ttime, the petitioners No.9, 10 and other brother in-laws, sister
\n\tin-laws etc. told her that she should get Rs.50,000\/- from her
\n\tparental home or she should not return back and that they would get
\n\tthe petitioner No.1 married elsewhere.   That administering such
\n\tthreats, they had thrown her out of the house and she had returned
\n\thome.  It is further stated that the matrimonial home as well as her
\n\tparental home are situated in the same village.  It is, accordingly,
\n\talleged that the petitioners herein had, after her marriage,
\n\tsubjected her to mental and physical harassment on the ground that
\n\tshe had given birth to a daughter and not a son, and had demanded
\n\tRs.50,000\/- towards dowry, hence, she has lodged the present
\n\tcomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcontents of the compromise deed dated 21st May, 2004 have
\n\talready been reproduced hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis an admitted position, as is borne out from the complaint itself,
\n\tthat the parties have executed a compromise deed dated 21st
\n\tMay, 2004.  In the circumstances, the allegations made in the First
\n\tInformation Report are to be considered in the light of the
\n\tsettlement arrived at between the parties vide the said compromise
\n\tdeed.\n<\/p>\n
Looking
\n\tto the First Information Report in question, it is apparent that the
\n\tallegations of cruelty are in respect of a period of seven years
\n\tprior to the date of the lodging of the First Information Report in
\n\tquestion.  The allegations are to the effect that the petitioners
\n\thave subjected the respondent No.2 to mental and physical harassment
\n\tby telling her that her parents have not given her anything towards
\n\tdowry, and that, as she has given birth to a daughter, she is
\n\tunlucky for them, and have beaten her up and thrown her out of the
\n\thouse.  The next allegation pertains to a period of two years
\n\tthereafter, wherein it is stated that she was not permitted to enter
\n\ther matrimonial house.  The last allegation is in respect of a
\n\tperiod six months prior to the date of the complaint wherein she has
\n\tstated that when her brothers came to leave her at her matrimonial
\n\thome, the petitioners had demanded Rs.50,000\/- to permit her  to
\n\treside at her matrimonial home.\n<\/p>\n
Considering
\n\tthe allegations made in the First Information Report , it is
\n\tapparent that the allegations of cruelty pertaining to the period of
\n\tseven years prior to the date of the complaint are not with respect
\n\tto any demand for dowry or any other property.  In this regard, it
\n\twould be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 498A of the
\n\tIndian Penal Code, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
?S498A.\n<\/p>\n
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
\ncruelty. – Whoever, being the
\nhusband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
\nwoman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
\nmay extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation\n<\/p>\n
– For the purpose of this section, ?Scruelty?? means-\n<\/p>\n
(a)
\nany willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
\nthe woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
\nlife, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or <\/p>\n
(b)
\nharassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
\ncoercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
\nfor any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by
\nher or any person related to her to meet such demand.]??\n<\/p>\n
Thus,
\n\tfor the purpose of falling within the purview of the said section,
\n\tit is necessary that the woman is subjected to cruelty as defined
\n\tunder the Explanation.  A perusal of the definition of ?Scruelty??
\n\tunder Clause (a) thereof, shows that the cruelty should be of such a
\n\tnature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
\n\tgrave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
\n\tphysical) of the woman.  Looking to the allegations made in the
\n\tcomplaint, none of the allegations are of such a nature as would
\n\tfall within the definition of cruelty under Clause (a) of the
\n\tExplanation.  Under Clause (b) of the Explanation, cruelty means
\n\tharassment to the woman with a view to coercing her or any person
\n\trelated to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
\n\tvaluable security or is on account of failure by her or any person
\n\trelated to her to meet such demand.  In relation to the period seven
\n\tyears prior to the filing of the complaint, the allegation is that
\n\tthe petitioners told her that her parents have not given her
\n\tanything towards dowry, however, there is no demand for any property
\n\tor valuable security as envisaged under Clause (b) to the
\n\tExplanation.  Hence, prima facie, the provisions of Section 498A of
\n\tthe IPC are not attracted as regards the allegations pertaining to
\n\tthe period seven years prior to the date of the complaint.\n<\/p>\n
Insofar
\n\tas the allegations regarding the period of two years after she was
\n\tallegedly thrown out of the house are concerned, the same is only to
\n\tthe effect that when her brother went to drop her at her matrimonial
\n\thome, they were not ready to keep her with them.  The last
\n\tallegation undisputedly pertains to the period six months prior to
\n\tthe date of the lodging of the First Information Report, whereby it
\n\tis alleged that when the brother of the respondent No.2 went to drop
\n\ther at her matrimonial home, all the petitioners demanded
\n\tRs.50,000\/- from her, failing which she was threatened that she
\n\twould not be permitted to reside with them, and that, they would get
\n\tthe petitioner No.1 re-married.  The last allegation undisputedly
\n\tpertains to a period after the parties have arrived at a settlement
\n\tvide the compromise deed dated 21st May, 2004.  It would,
\n\ttherefore, be pertinent to refer to the contents of the compromise
\n\tdeed which clearly shows that it was agreed that the petitioner No.1
\n\twould provide a separate residence to the respondent No.2, one and
\n\thalf Vigha of land and monthly maintenance of Rs.700\/-, pursuant to
\n\twhich, respondent No.2 had been provided with the residential
\n\tpremise, one and half Vigha land and maintenance was also provided
\n\tregularly for a period of ten months thereafter, however, it appears
\n\tthat, on account of some disputes in respect of encroachment of
\n\tland, the petitioner No.1 had stopped paying the monthly
\n\tmaintenance, which subsequent to the filing of the present
\n\tapplication has also been paid to the respondent No.2.  Considering
\n\tthe settlement arrived at between the parties, when the respondent
\n\tNo.2 complainant had already been provided with a residential home
\n\tand it was agreed that she would reside separately there, the
\n\tquestion of the brother of the respondent No.2 coming to drop her at
\n\ther matrimonial home six months prior to the date of the complaint
\n\tdoes not arise at all.\n<\/p>\n
Besides,
\n\tthere is no harassment or cruelty in connection with the demand of
\n\tRs.50,000\/- of dowry as alleged.  All that is alleged is that she
\n\twas told that unless she brings Rs.50,000\/- towards dowry, she would
\n\tnot be permitted to reside with the petitioners.  In the
\n\tcircumstances, the said demand also does not fall within the purview
\n\tof Section 498A of the IPC.  Furthermore, in view of the settlement
\n\tarrived at between the parties, the question of the respondent No.2
\n\tgoing to reside at her matrimonial home did not arise at all.
\n\tHence, the allegations made in the complaint have to be viewed in
\n\tthe light of the compromise arrived at between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tSupreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v.
\n\tBhajanlal and others,
\n\t1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down certain categories of cases by
\n\tway of illustrations, wherein the inherent powers under Section 482
\n\tof the Code can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the
\n\tprocess of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
\n\tThe illustrations No.1, 5 and 7 would be relevant for the purpose of
\n\tpresent case, which are as under :\n<\/p>\n
?S[1]\tWhere
\nthe allegations made in the first information report or the
\ncomplaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
\ntheir entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
\na case against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
[5]\tWhere
\nthe allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
\ninherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can
\never reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
\nproceeding against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
[7]\tWhere
\na criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and\/or
\nwhere the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
\nmotive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite
\nhim due to private and personal grudge.?S<\/p>\n
\tConsidering
\n\tthe allegations made in the First Information Report in question, it
\n\tis apparent that even if the allegations made therein are taken at
\n\ttheir face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not
\n\tconstitute any offence under Section 498A of the IPC.  As regards
\n\tthe allegations made for the offences punishable under Section 323
\n\tand 504 IPC are concerned, the same relate to the incidents alleged
\n\tto have taken place seven years prior to  the date of the lodging of
\n\tthe complaint, hence, the same are apparently time barred.
\n\tMoreover, the said allegations are general and vague in nature and
\n\tprima facie, do not disclose the ingredients of the said offences.\n<\/p>\n
\tBesides,
\n\tconsidering the allegations made in the complaint in the light of
\n\tthe settlement arrived at between the parties, the allegations made
\n\tin the complaint appear to be inherently improbable and also appear
\n\tto be attended with malafide for the purpose of wreaking vengeance
\n\ton the accused with a view to spite them due to disputes having
\n\tarisen in connection with the implementation of the compromise deed.
\n\t In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present
\n\tcase falls within the categories laid down by the Apex Court in the
\n\tcase of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others
\n\t(supra).\n<\/p>\n
Another
\n\taspect of the case which is required to be noted is that the
\n\trespondent No.2 has tried to rope in as many members of the family
\n\tas possible.  Even married sister in-laws who are residing
\n\tseparately and their husbands have not been spared.\n<\/p>\n
From
\n\tthe aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the complaint in
\n\tquestion pertains to three periods, firstly, seven years prior to
\n\tthe date of the lodging of the complaint, secondly, another five
\n\tyears prior thereto and the thirdly, six months prior thereto.  The
\n\tallegations pertaining to the period of seven years prior to the
\n\tdate of the complaint are apparently time barred.  Besides, the
\n\tallegations do not disclose any offence under Section 498A of the
\n\tIPC.  As regards the allegations pertaining to the second period,
\n\tthe same do not disclose any offence whatsoever.  As regards the
\n\tallegations pertaining to the last period, the same also do not
\n\tdisclose any offence as alleged in the complaint.  In the aforesaid
\n\tcircumstances, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for
\n\texercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of
\n\tthe process of Court.\n<\/p>\n
For
\n\tthe foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is, accordingly,
\n\tallowed.  The First Information Report registered vide Bapunagar
\n\tPolice Station I ?  C.R. No.8\/2006 is hereby quashed.  Rule is made
\n\tabsolute accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008 Author: H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.MA\/357\/2006 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 357 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChavda vs The on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-03T05:22:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-03T05:22:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3538,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-03T05:22:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-03T05:22:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-03T05:22:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008"},"wordCount":3538,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008","name":"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-03T05:22:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chavda-vs-the-on-1-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chavda vs The on 1 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74444","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74444"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74444\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74444"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74444"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74444"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}