Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah submits that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the applicant No.1-Kantilal Maganlal Shah has passed away NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1199/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2024 undefined and, therefore, he does not press this application and seeks permission to withdraw the same qua the applicant No.1. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of as withdrawn qua the applicant No.1- Kantilal Maganlal Shah.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Parthiv B. Shah appearing for the applicant submits that the complainant and the applicant are brother and sister and some family disputes cropped up between them regarding their ancestral property. He further submits that a civil litigation is also pending before the competent civil court for adjudication. Learned advocate Mr. Shah also submits that the impugned complaint has been lodged by the complainant with oblique and ulterior motive with a sole intention to harass and pressurize the applicant. Even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed to be true and correct, there is no prima facie case made out against the applicant for the offences as alleged in the complaint. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that the alleged incident took place somewhere in the year 1975 and 1986, whereas the impugned complaint came to be lodged in the year 2014, and, therefore, there is a gross and inordinate delay of 40 years in registering the complaint and the complainant has miserably failed to explain about such delay in registering the complaint. The delay on the part of the complainant is fatal to the case of the prosecution and also creates doubt about the credibility and veracity of the facts mentioned in the complaint.