Gujarat High Court
Jubedaben W/O Dawood Ismail Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Gita Gopi
R/SCR.A/985/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 985 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
JUBEDABEN W/O DAWOOD ISMAIL PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AFTABHUSEN ANSARI(5320) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DHWANI P LAKHANI(8222) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
DS AFF. NOT FILED (N)(11) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 16/06/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2; and learned advocate
Ms. D.P. Lakhani waives service on behalf of respondent No.3. With the
R/SCR.A/985/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is taken up for
final hearing today itself.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the order dated 30.10.2018 passed below application Exhibit-08 in
Criminal Case No.1690 of 2017 by the Court of learned C.J.M., Bharuch
whereby, the said application was rejected; and to issue appropriate
directions to the authority concerned for the release of her Indian Passport
No. H-7400362, which has been seized in connection with the complaint
being C.R. No. II - 16 of 2010 registered with Bharuch Rural Police
Station.
3. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are that on
14.12.2006 the son of the petitioner herein had married respondent No.3
as per their customs and rituals. After residing in India for about a month,
the petitioner and the couple left for Zambia, as the petitioner and her
family members were residents of Zambia since long. It appears that
respondent No.3 and her husband got divorced in the year 2009 while in
Zambia and thereafter, respondent No.3 returned to India. In 2010, the
respondent No.3 filed the complaint being C.R. No. II - 16 of 2010 with
Bharuch Rural Police Station against her husband and his family
members, including the petitioner, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323 and 114 IPC and Sections 3 & 7 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. When the petitioner returned to India on 07.10.2016, she
was detained at the Airport and her custody was handed over to the
concerned Police Station, as her name had figured in the "Look Out"
circular. In connection with the said offence, her Indian Passport was also
seized. Later, the petitioner was released on regular bail. However, she
was not handed over her Passport. The petitioner, therefore, preferred
R/SCR.A/985/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
application Exhibit-8 seeking release of her Passport, which came to be
rejected, by way of the impugned order. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ansari submitted that initially, a Summary
report had been filed against the petitioner, which was accepted by the
concerned Magisterial Court; however, the same was challenged. The
Sessions Court concerned allowed the appeal and supplementary charge-
sheet came to be filed against the petitioner. It was submitted that the
petitioner is a resident of Zambia and is aged about 72 years. Her husband
and son are settled in Zambia and she is presently residing at Bharuch.
She is having different age-related ailments and is facing severe hardships
on account of the prevailing pandemic. It was, therefore, submitted that
considering the age of the petitioner and the prevailing pandemic
situation, the presence of the petitioner with her husband is necessary.
Hence, the order passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
5. Learned advocate Ms. D.P. Lakhani appearing for respondent No.3
opposed the petition by submitting that it would be difficult to secure the
presence of the petitioner, if the Passport is released in her favour. She,
therefore, submitted that the present petition may not be entertained.
6. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material
on record. On account of some matrimonial issues between respondent
No.3 and her husband, the Passport of the petitioner, who happens to be
the mother-in-law of respondent No.3, came to be seized. The
apprehension put-forth by learned advocate for respondent No.3 has
substance since the petitioner may not be available for trial, if the
Passport is released in her favour. But, at the same time, the Court could
R/SCR.A/985/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
not ignore the fact that the petitioner is an old lady, aged about 72 years
and whose husband and other family members are presently residing in a
foreign country (Zambia). Moreover, it would be very difficult for her to
sustain herself in the prevailing pandemic situation.
7. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that co-accused had
preferred Special Criminal Application Nos.10050 of 2016 and 3017 of
2017 before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. A coordinate
Bench of this Court heard both Special Criminal Application Nos.10050
of 2016 and 3017 of 2017 together and by order dated 05.09.2019, both
the writ petitions were disposed of, as having been withdrawn and as the
trial had already commenced, the trial Court concerned was directed to
ensure that the trial was not unnecessarily delayed and that it may be
concluded as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year
from the date of the order. In view of the directions issued in the above
matters, the trial Court concerned ought to have concluded the trial by
September 2020 as the witnesses also appear to be local residents.
However, the Court is informed that the trial has not yet concluded.
8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
the observations made by the coordinate Bench in the matters preferred
by co-accused persons, the trial Court concerned is directed to conclude
the trial within a period of FIFTEEN DAYS from the date of receipt of
writ of this order. With the above direction, the petition stands disposed
of. Registry to send a writ of this order to the trial Court concerned by E-
mail / Fax forthwith. Direct service is also permitted.
( GITA GOPI, J )
PRAVIN KARUNAN
