Ganeshbhai Naranbhai Gosai & vs State Of Gujarat & on 14 November, 2017

R/CR.MA/15688/2017 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15688 of 2017

GANESHBHAI NARANBHAI GOSAI 1….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
CHETANKUMAR K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 2
MR A A ZABUAWALA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 2
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 14/11/2017

ORAL ORDER

1 By   this   application   under   Section   482   of   the   Code   of   Criminal 
Procedure,   1973,   the   applicants,   both   Doctors   by   profession,   seek   to 
invoke the inherent powers of this Court, praying for quashing of the 
First Information Report being I – C.R. No.6 of 2017 registered on 6th 
June   2017   at   the   Mahila   Police   Station,   Gandhinagar   for   the   offence 
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506(2) read with 114 of 
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition 
Act. 

2 It appears from the materials on record that the applicants before 
me   are   distant   relatives   of   the   respondent   No.2   from   the   side   of   the 
husband. Having regard to the nature of the allegations levelled in the 

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 14 23:13:00 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/15688/2017 ORDER

F.I.R. and the  role attributed  to the two applicants  herein, this  Court 
passed the following order on 26th July 2017: 

“Having  heard  learned  advocate  appearing  for the applicant and  
considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, in my opinion,  
this application requires consideration.

Rule  returnable on 30/10/2017. Mr.Mitesh Amin, learned Public  
Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1­ State of  
Gujarat.

No  coercive  steps  shall  be  taken  against  the  applicant.  However,  
Investigating Agency may go on with further investigation.

Direct   service   is   permitted   for   respondent   No.2,   to   be   served  
through the concerned Police Station.”

3 Thus, while permitting  the investigation  to go on, a Coordinate 
Bench of this Court protected the two applicants from any coercive steps 
being taken against them. 

4 Mr. Bharda, the learned counsel appeared today on behalf of the 
respondent   No.2.   He   has   filed   a   detailed   reply   along   with   certain 
documents. The reply along with the documents is ordered to be taken 
on record. A copy of the reply has been supplied to the learned counsel 
appearing for the applicants as well as to the learned A.P.P. appearing 
for the State. 

5 In the reply filed by the respondent No.2, there are allegations of 
forcible abortion. This abortion is alleged to have been carried out by 
one   Dr.   Priyanka   Sinha   of   the   Om   Maternity   and   Nursing   Home,   as 
evident from page: 14 of the reply filed today. Before taking any view of 
the matter, I would like to permit the Investigating Officer to carry out 
some more investigation in this direction. I take notice of the fact that in 

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 14 23:13:00 IST 2017
R/CR.MA/15688/2017 ORDER

the F.I.R., there is not a whisper of any allegation as regards forcible 
abortion.   The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent   No.2 
submitted that the F.I.R. was not noted down in the manner dictated by 
the   respondent   No.2.   Some   allegations   are   also   levelled   against   the 
police officer in this regard at the end of the respondent No.2. However, 
Ms. Moxa Thakkar, the learned A.P.P. pointed out that in fact, it was a 
written  complaint dated 6th  June 2017 duly signed by the respondent 
No.2,   which   was   handed   over   to   the   police   for   the   purpose   of 
registration of the F.I.R. Such written complaint is being shown today to 
me from the original papers of the investigation. I take notice of the fact 
that   in   the   written   complaint   duly   signed,   there   is   no   allegation   of 
forcible   abortion.   However,   there   is   some   contemporaneous   record 
supporting the allegations of forcible abortion. The police must look into 
the same at the earliest. After investigation in this regard and the report 
if  any, the  Court shall  hear  this  matter  further  so far as  the  plea  for 
quashing   of   the   F.I.R.   is   concerned.   The   interim   protection   shall 
continue. 

6 Post this matter on 28th December 2017.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
chandresh

Page 3 of 3

HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 14 23:13:00 IST 2017

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *