Gujarat High Court
Narendra Vallabhbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 26 February, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/19723/2020 ORDER
IN THEHIGHCOURTOF GUJARATAT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINALMISC.APPLICATIONNO. 19723of 2020
==============================================================================
NARENDRAVALLABHBHAIPATEL
Versus
STATEOF GUJARAT
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MRMANANA SHAH(5412)for the Applicant(s)No. 1,2
MS PANKTIP SHAH(10442)for the Respondent(s)No. 2
MS MAITHILID MEHTA,ADDITIONALPUBLICPROSECUTOR(2)for the Respondent(s)No.
1
==============================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date: 26/02/2021
ORALORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manan A. Shah for the applicants,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the
respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Ms. Pankti P.
Shah for the respondent No.2.
2. By way of present application, the applicants pray for quashing of
the complaint being C.R. No.11210046200252 of 2020 egistered
with Puna Police Station, District Surat dated 12.02.2020 for the
offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicants and learned Advocate for the
complainant submit that during the pendency of the present
application, the matter is settled between the parties (brother/s
and sister) and the complainant would not have any objection, if
the complaint is quashed. Learned Advocate for the applicants
R/CR.MA/19723/2020 ORDER
has drawn attention of the Court to the Affidavit of the
complainant at Page 16 of the application. Learned Advocate for
the complainant submits that the complainant has already filed an
affidavit to this regard. He submits that the complainant maybe
permitted to join the meeting. Permission is granted.
4. Learned Advocate for the complainant has identified the
complainant. The complainant - Pushpaben Nitinbhai Patel has
joined the meeting and upon inquiry by this Court, she confirms
the fact of settlement.
5. Both the learned Advocates for the parties submit that no fruitful
purpose would be served, if the complaint is not quashed against
the applicants herein.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili D. Mehta
strongly opposed the quashing of the complaint and she further
submits that the offences committed by the applicants are serious
in nature and therefore, no indulgence may be shown.
7. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and
more particularly, considering the affidavit filed by the original
complainant on 11.11.2020 and also considering the judgments
of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan Mohan
Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582,
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190
and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported
in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), this Court is of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served, if the complaint is proceeded
any further.
R/CR.MA/19723/2020 ORDER
8. In view of the discussions and observations above, the criminal
complaint being C.R. No.11210046200252 of 2020 registered
with Puna Police Station, District Surat dated 12.02.2020 for the
offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 504, 506(2) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present
applicants.
9. Rule is made absolute. Registry is directed to communicate this
order to the concerned Police Station through Email immediately.
Sd/-
(NIKHILS. KARIEL,J)
CAROLINE
