Gujarat High Court
Laljibhai vs State on 9 August, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1458/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1458 of 2011
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 ?
======================================
LALJIBHAI
PUJABHAI TARAL & 2 - Applicants
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
MR
NV GANDHI for the Applicants.
MR KP RAWAL, APP for Respondent
No.1.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent
No.2.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 09/08/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Mr.K.P.Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. The present Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by petitioner No.3 herein - original accused No.4 to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR being C.R.No.II - 3006 of 2011 registered with Isri Police Station, District: Sabarkantha, which has been filed by respondent No.2 herein
- original complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 498(c), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In response to the Notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2 - original complainant has remained personally present before this Court and has made a statement in presence of the petitioner as well as Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.K.P.Rawal that there is a settlement entered into between the parties and that even the petitioner has also started residing with her husband and she has no objection if the impugned complaint/FIR is quashed and set aside.
4. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot V/s. State of Punjab reported in 2008(4) SCC 582; in the case of Nikhil Merchant V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2009(1) GLH 31 as well as in the case of Manoj Sharma V/s. State and others reported in 2009(1) GLH 190.
5. In view of the above and relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition is allowed and impugned complaint/FIR being C.R.No.II - 3006 of 2011 registered with Isri Police Station, District:
Sabarkantha is hereby quashed and set aside so far as petitioner No.3 herein - original accused No.4 - Smt.Maltiben, daughter of Laljibhai Pujabhai Taral and wife of Mahendrakumar Devjibhai Katara, is concerned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti Top