Vinodbhai vs State of Gujarat

 

Gujarat High Court
Vinodbhai vs State on 21 September, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8541/2003	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8541 of 2003
 

With


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8542 of 2003
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
 
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

 
=========================================================

 

VINODBHAI
SUNDARJI RAICHURA & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PM THAKKAR, SR. ADV. WITH MR.SANJEEV KUMAR for M/S THAKKAR ASSOC.
for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR KARTIK PANDYA, APP  for Respondent(s) :
1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/09/2010 

 

 
ORAL
JUDGMENT

Petitioners are common in both the petitions. Original complainant, respondent No.2 is also common. Petitioner No.1 is the brother of husband of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is his wife. So far as the facts of Criminal Misc. Application No.8541 of 2003 is concerned, Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint before Gandhigram police station alleging offence punishable under section 498A506323504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners and younger brother of the husband. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted its report dated 5.9.02 before the learned Magistrate and requested for grant of ‘B’ summary. The learned Magistrate, however, by the impugned order dated 29.9.03 ordered inquiry under section of the Criminal Procedure Code and permitted the complainant to produce her witnesses before the Court.

Similarly in Criminal Misc. Application No.8542 of 2003, the complainant had filed a complaint before the complaint dated 3.8.02, alleging offences punishable under section 324323 read with resection 114 of the IPC, in which also, the police filed a report for ‘B’ summary. The learned Magistrate, however, for similar reasons decided to hold inquiry under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the impugned order dated 29.9.03.

Though served, no one appears for respondent No.2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State and having perused the documents on record, I find that the learned Magistrate has not recorded proper reasons for not accepting ‘B’ summary in both the cases. The reports of the police suggested that the complainant and her witnesses were not ready to give their statements though sufficient effort was made. I have also perused the nature of allegations made in the complaints and the police report. From the record it also emerges that the complainant had left the house of her husband nearly 14 years back and has been residing with her family separately.

Considering all these aspects and also considering that the complaints are of the year 2002, permitting further inquiry into such allegations would result into abuse of process of law. I am of the opinion that orders are required to be set aside.

Taking overall view of the matter, both the orders dated 29.9.2003 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.R.No.I-258/02 and C.R.No.I-266/02 registered at Gandhigram Police Station are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)     Top

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s