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