Gujarat High Court
Meenakshiben Navinchandra vs State Of Gujarat & on 10 September, 2013
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
MEENAKSHIBEN NAVINCHANDRA SAVANI (AS PER FIR MEENABEN NAVINCV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/CR.MA/9686/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 9686 of 2012 ================================================================ MEENAKSHIBEN NAVINCHANDRA SAVANI (AS PER FIR MEENABEN NAVINC & 1....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR PRATIK Y JASANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2 MS HANSA PUNANI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 10/09/2013 ORAL ORDER
Heard Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the applicants, and Ms. Punani, learned APP, for the respondent State.
2. Present petition came to be admitted vide order dated 9.7.2012 and ad-interim relief was also granted by the very order. The said order dated 9.7.2012 reads thus:-
Rule returnable on 14.08.2012.
Learned APP Ms.Archana Raval, waives service of notice of Rule for Respondent No.1-State of Gujarat.
Ad-interim relief in terms of Para No.9(B) till then.
Direct Service qua Respondent No.2 is permitted.
3. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.12.2012, the interim relief was modified. The said order dated 13.12.2012 reads thus:-
1.
The present application is admitted and ad-interim relief is granted in terms of paragraph 9(B). Though served, no one appears for respondent no.2 (original complainant).
2. Heard Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned Advocate for the applicants and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP. for the State. It is an admitted position that the present application is filed immediately after the Magistrate took cognizance and has ordered inquiry u/s. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances arising out of this case, ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 9(B) is modified to the extent that investigation shall go on, however, no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicants being accused nos. 6 and 7. The aforesaid order is modified as learned APP has pointed out that because of the ad-interim relief investigation is stayed qua the present applicants no. 6 and 7. Mr. Jasani, ld. Advocate for the applicants has no objection if the ad-interim relief is modified accordingly.
4. In view of the said order, on previous occasion, it was inquired from the learned advocate for the applicants as well as learned APP that almost 8 months have passed since the court modified the order of interim relief and permitted investigation to proceed and that therefore, the investigation must have been concluded by now.
4.1 In response to the said inquiry, learned advocate for the applicants had informed the court that the investigation is concluded and the trial had began.
Learned advocate for the applicants desired to place on record order(s) passed during the trial.
Therefore, vide order dated 29.8.2013, the proceedings were adjourned to today. The said order dated 29.8.2013 reads thus:-
Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in the trial proceedings, certain orders have been passed by the Trial Court. He seeks time to place on record copies of the orders. Hence, time is granted.
S. O. to 10.09.2013.
5. However, today, when the application is taken up for hearing, the copy of the order is not placed on record. Instead the learned advocate for the applicants again submitted that according to the information received from the learned advocate who appears for the applicants at the trial court, the trial is over/concluded.
6. In view of the fact that during the pendency not only investigation was concluded and charge-sheet was filed, but the trial had also commenced and now the trial is also over/concluded, the petition has lost its cause or purpose or object for which the petition is preferred. Upon conclusion of trial, now, the question of quashing the complaint would not survive and in view of the aforesaid statement and submission by learned advocate for the applicants (i.e. the trial is now concluded), present petition has become infructuous and it is accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous upon conclusion of the trial. Besides this, in view of the said submission that the trial commenced, the Court would not quash the complaint and allow the trial to be concluded, which, as per the petitioner's counsel is now concluded.
6.1 It would be open to the learned advocate for the applicants to place on record copy of the order(s) passed by the learned trial court on or before 13.9.2013, but after showing the order to the Court.
With aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief stands vacated forthwith. Orders accordingly.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) kdc Page 4