SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rucha Bhanubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2018

C/MCA/413/2018 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 413 of 2018

In CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17105 of 2016

RUCHA BHANUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT

Appearance:
MR AD OZA(515) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(99) for the RESPONDENT(s)
No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

Date : 17/07/2018
ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)

1. This Miscellaneous Civil Application is filed under the

provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging

that respondents have violated the directions issued in the

order dated 17th February, 2017 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous Application (For Quashing Setting Aside

FIR/Order) No. 17105 of 2016.

2. The applicant herein is the complainant of FIR CR-I No. 14

of 2016 registered with Ghatlodiya Police Station,

Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under sections

498A, 323 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code and

under sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The

Page 1 of 7
C/MCA/413/2018 ORDER

accused in the said FIR have filed Criminal Miscellaneous

Application No. 17105 of 2016 for quashing the aforesaid

FIR. The learned single Judge, while dismissing the

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17105 of 2016,

issued directions to the respondents herein. Operative

portion of the order dated 17th February, 2017, containing

the directions reads as under:

“Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and having considered the
materials on record, I am of the view that more
than a prima facie case is made out against the
applicant herein and the other co-accused. This
is not a case in which I should exercise my
inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and quash the
FIR. On the contrary, this is a case wherein I
should direct the authorities concerned to
secure the presence of the husband in India at
any cost. I expect the husband to come down to
India and settle the matter. The first informant
is also ready and willing to dissolve the
marriage with mutual consent.

I am told that the husband has initiated
proceedings for divorce before the Family Court,
and that too, through his father, i.e. the
applicant herein. In the result, this application
fails and is hereby rejected.The ad-interim order

Page 2 of 7
C/MCA/413/2018 ORDER

earlier granted stands vacated. Rule discharged.
The Investigating Officer shall initiate
appropriate proceedings to secure the presence
of the husband before the court in India for the
purpose of answering the charge. The
Investigating Officer shall look into the
provisions of
Sections 105A and 105B of the
Code of Criminal Procedure including the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of
Maharashtra and others, (2010)1 GLR 1, and
do the needful in accordance with law at the
earliest.”

3. In this case, it is the case of the applicant that in spite of

such directions, no steps have been taken to secure the

presence of the husband of the applicant and her in-laws

before the concerned Court.

4. The Police Inspector, Ghatlodiya Police Station, who is the

3rd respondent herein, has filed affidavit in reply. Relevant

portion of the reply affidavit is contained in paragraphs

4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, which reads as under:

“4.3 It is most respectfully submitted that pursuant
to the directions of the Hon’ble Single Judge as
aforesaid, rendered in the Judgment and Order dated
17.02.2016, the Police Inspector, Ghatlodiya Police
Station issued warrant of arrest under
Section 70 of
CRPC against the accused husband of the applicant

Page 3 of 7
C/MCA/413/2018 ORDER

and accused mother in law of the applicant on
09.08.2017 and 18.08.2017 respectively. Copies of
such warrants are annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure-R2 and R3 respectively.

4.4 It is most respectfully submitted that it was
eventually known that the accused No.1 and 3
respectively resided at Canada and therefore, Look
Out Circulars came to be issued against said accused
No.1 and 3 on 13.03.2018 and 19.12.2017
respectively. Copies of the said look out circulars are
collectively annexed hereto and marked as Anexure-
R4.

4.5 It is most respectfully submitted that as such
an endeavor was also made to ensure issuance of Red
Corner Notice against accused No.1 and 3 to secure
their presence, by the Police Inspector, Ghatlodia
Police Station, however the said request was turned
down on the basis of communication from Additional
DIG Police CID (Crime and Railways), Gujarat State,
dated 12.05.2010 in which it has been stated that
Red Corner Notice, in cases registered under
Section
498 of IPC,
Dowry Act nd Matrimonial Disputes being
domestic disputes of civil nature, cannot be issued. A
copy of the said is annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure-R5.”

5. Further, against the said reply affidavit, rejoinder is filed by

the applicant reiterating the stand taken in the application

and it is further stated in the rejoinder about the steps

Page 4 of 7
C/MCA/413/2018 ORDER

taken by the High Commission in the case of her friend Ms.

Sahar Shaikh.

6. Further affidavit in reply is filed by the Principal Secretary,

Home Department, State of Gujarat. While denying the

various allegations made by the applicant in the reply, it is

stated in paragraphs 6a, b and c as under:-

“a. It is respectfully submitted that an affidavit in
reply is filed by the investigating officer before this
Hon’ble Court placing on record the details of the
progress in the investigation so far. The deponent
craves leave to rely on such affidavit at the time of
hearing as most of the details are set out in the said
affidavit. Further progtress is submitted hereafter for
the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
b. It is submitted that necessary application under
Section 82 and also under 83 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 needs to be given by the
Investigating Officer to the Ld. Trial court and I
assure this Hon’ble Court that the concerned
Investigating Officer would give such application as
early as poss9ble as necessary instruction for doing
the same is given to the Senior Officers through my
officer.

c. It is further to state that during the pendency of
these proceedings the investigating officer had also
approached the Ld. Trial court on 12.05.2018 with an
application for orders under
Section 105A and 105B
of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and I assure

Page 5 of 7
C/MCA/413/2018 ORDER

this Hon’ble Court that the said application will be
rigorously pursued further so that the order passed
by this Hon’ble Court is duly complied with. I say
that for doing the needful further, there is a
prescribed procedure, prescribed by MHA Ministry of
Home Affairs and pursuant to it, Government of
Gujarat, Home Department is also required to follow
the said prescribed procedure and the same needs to
be followed accordingly.”

7. We have heard learned counsel Shri A.D.Oza for the

applicant and learned Public Prosecutor Shri Mitesh Amin

for the respondents. In this case, it is to be noticed that

complaint is registered at the instance of the applicant

herein for which the accused of the said offence have filed

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 17105 of 2016 for

quashing and setting aside the FIR. While dismissing the

application, the learned single Judge has issued certain

directions, which are already extracted above in this order.

Further, as evident from the reply affidavit filed by the 3 rd

respondent and also the further reply filed by the 1st

respondent, indicating the steps taken by them, we are of

the view that there is no willful or deliberate violation of the

directions issued by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous

Application No. 17105 of 2016. At the same time, in view of

Page 6 of 7
C/MCA/413/2018 ORDER

the directions, the respondents shall take all steps to

secure the presence of the accused before the court in

India, in compliance of the directions.

8. For the reasons recorded above and having regard to the

steps taken by the respondents in compliance of the

directions issued by this Court in the order dated 17th

February, 2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous

Application No. 17105 of 2016, we are of the view that no

case is made out to proceed against respondent nos 2 and

3 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act,

1971. At the same time, we deem it appropriate to dispose

of this application by directing the respondents to take all

possible steps to secure the presence of the accused before

the Court in India in compliance of the directions issued by

this Court.

No order as to costs.

(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
A.M. PIRZADA

Page 7 of 7

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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh