Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Umedsinh P. Champawat vs State Of Gujarat on 29 June, 2005

Jay vs Krupaliben on 25 July, 2008

13. Umedsinh P. Champawat Vs. State of Gujarat, 2006(2) GLH 736 is cited by the learned advocate for the petitioners in support of the submission that although it is true that the powers for quashing should be exercised sparingly and in a rare case, where it is apparent from the record of the case that the prosecution has not made out a case. However, when there is no evidence against the petitioners, then, quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet would be justified. It was further held that for totally illegal implication in the offence, the prosecuting agency can be held liable for prosecution and for that the person so falsely implicated has to take action. Thus, the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that considering the ratio laid down in the above-mentioned judgment, it is a fit case to quash the FIR produced at Annexure-C to the petition.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - H B Antani - Full Document

Nirav Pratapbhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2015

Petitioner has also relied upon the decision reported in case of Umedsinh P. Champawat vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2006 (2) GLH 736 wherein Single Judge of this Court has quashed the FIR considering that hotel premise of the accused was not raided and that there is no evidence to prove that accused was responsible or liable for allowing the hotel to be used as a brothel or that he is living out of such activity only and there is no evidence to the effect that any part of the hotel premises was in actual use of illegal activities of immoral traffic and more particularly, held that only a Page 9 of 11 R/CR.RA/640/2012 CAV JUDGMENT statement of co accused is not enough. Thereby it is clear that in reported case, the accused was owner of the hotel, whereas in the present case, the allegation against present petitioner is not as an owner of any premises, but it is as customer and a person who tried to catch the victim of prostitution with the co - accused Meera instead of helping her to get rescue from the control of Meera. Unfortunately, he was also one of the customers and, therefore, that he being a customer, is not punishable, but that part of evidence confirms the involvement of the petitioner in the offence when he called the victim to stay at particular place and then reached there with the lady Meera who was controlling the victim. If we consider the prima facie evidence from police papers, it becomes clear that when victim has tried to rescue herself from the control, petitioner has called her on her mobile, but the prima facie evidence clearly proves that he has not only called the victim, but went there with Meera, lady who was otherwise controlling the victim for prostitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S G Shah - Full Document

Chimanbhai Kangibhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 7 July, 2015

In yet another decision relied upon by the learned advocate in case of Umedsingh P. Champawat v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2006 (2) GLH 736, the applicant had moved this Court under Section 482 CrPC where he was alleged of committing offence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 7 & 9 of the said Act on the ground that there was no evidence that the accused was responsible or liable for allowing the hotel to be used as a brothel or that he was living on th earning of such Page 4 of 11 R/CR.RA/605/2014 ORDER activity, he was also not in the effective management of hotel at the time of alleged offence, the Court therefore held that it would not be legal to allow him to face the charges.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naman Laddha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2022

"15. Answering the first question is not difficult because the issue is no longer res integra. This Court, in the case of Umedsinh P.Champavat v. State of Gujarat, (2006)2 GLH 736, after placing reliance on an earlier decision of this very Court in the case of The State of Gujarat v. Bai Radha w/o Natwarlal Ramshankar and another, 9 GLR 278, held as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S K Singh - Full Document

Harshkumar Kanubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 11 September, 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2187/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined Answering the first question is not difficult because the issue is no longer res integra. This Court, in the case of Umedsinh P.Champavat v. State of Gujarat, (2006)2 GLH 736, after placing reliance on an earlier decision of this very Court in the case of The State of Gujarat v. Bai Radha w/o Natwarlal Ramshankar and another, 9 GLR 278, held as under :
Gujarat High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - N S Desai - Full Document
1   2 Next