SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Lilaji Prajapati & 4 vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 February, 2018

R/CR.MA/17758/2011 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17758 of 2011

LILAJI PRAJAPATI 4….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 – 5
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KALPESH T GURNANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. RAKESH PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 21/02/2018

ORAL ORDER

1. By this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, the applicants – original accused seek to invoke the

inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the First

Information Report being C.R. No. I-53 of 2011 registered with the

Amirgadh Police Station, District: Banaskantha, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114

of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It appears from the materials on record that the applicant no. 1 is

Page 1 of 4

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Wed Feb 21 23:13:43 IST 2018
R/CR.MA/17758/2011 ORDER

the father-in-law, the applicant no. 2 is the mother-in-law, the applicant

no. 3 is the elder brother-in-law, the applicant no. 4 is the wife of the

applicant no. 3 and the applicant no. 5 is the younger brother-in-law of

the respondent no. 2 – original first informant.

3. The respondent no. 2 got married with one Rameshbhai Lilaji

Prajapati before seven years from the date of registration of the FIR. In

the wedlock two daughters were born named Prerna and Tanisha.

4. It appears that matrimonial disputes cropped up between the

husband and wife, which ultimately led to the filing of the FIR.

5. On 19.01.2012, the following order was passed:

“Issue notice returnable on 9.2.2012.
Adinterim relief in terms of paragraph 9(B) qua
the applicant.

Learned APP waives service on behalf of the State.
Direct service to respondent No.2 is permitted.”

6. Thereafter, on 09.05.2012, the following order was passed:-

“Heard learned advocate for the applicants.
Rule.

Interim relief granted earlier to continue till final
disposal.”

7. On 11.09.2015, the following order was passed:-

” Learned counsel for the petitioner has
drawn my attention to the address given by the
complainant according to which, she is resident of
the Rajasthan. It has been submitted that the
complainant has tried to show the incident having
taken place at Village: Kapasiya, Taluka:

Amirgadh, which falls in Gujarat, for the purpose
of jurisdiction. However, counsel for the

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Wed Feb 21 23:13:43 IST 2018
R/CR.MA/17758/2011 ORDER

respondent, Mr.Ankit Bachani, is not present in the
Court. In the interest of justice, this matter is
adjourned to 9TH October, 2015.”

8. In the last, on 17.04.2017, the following order was passed:-

“Mr. Jigar Gadhavi appearing for the petitioner
states on instruction that since the offence is
arising out of matrimonial relation which is now
settled. Therefore, to produce on record the
documents regarding settlement sometime be
granted. Hence, matter is stand over to
24.04.2017.”

9. It was brought to my notice that the settlement has been arrived at

between the husband and wife and the wife is residing with her husband

as on date. I requested the learned APP to inquire through the

Investigating Officer whether there has been any reunion or not.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has not

been able to gather any information as he is not in touch with his client.

However, the Investigating Officer has been able to gather the

information that the husband and wife has reconciled and are residing

together with their two daughters.

11. In such circumstances, I see no good reason now to ask the police

to carry out the investigation.

12. In the result, this application succeeds, and is hereby allowed. The

FIR being C.R. No. I-53 of 2011 registered with the Amirgadh Police

Station, District: Banaskantha, is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.

Direct service is permitted.

Page 3 of 4

HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Wed Feb 21 23:13:43 IST 2018
R/CR.MA/17758/2011 ORDER

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
Bhoomi

Page 4 of 4

HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Wed Feb 21 23:13:43 IST 2018

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh