Gujarat High Court
Gaurav Yashpal Ahuja vs State Of Gujarat on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/SCR.A/4971/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4971 of 2022
==========================================================
GAURAV YASHPAL AHUJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIVEK R TRIVEDI(7716) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 23/03/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to
quash and set aside the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 161 of 2021
as also the order dated 16.07.2021 passed below application
Exhibit-4 by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Court No.17, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.5008384 of
2016.
2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 herein had
filed complaint being I-C.R. No. 164 of 2016 with Sardarnagar
Police Station against the petitioners herein u/s. 498(A), 323
and 114 of IPC and sections 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition
R/SCR.A/4971/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023
Act. In the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5008384 of 2016
arising out of the said FIR, the petitioners had filed application
Exhibit-4 praying for their discharge u/s. 239 of Cr.P.C.
However, the said application came to be rejected vide
impugned order dated 16.07.2021. The revision preferred
against the order passed below application Exhibit-4 also came
to be rejected vide impugned order dated 20.04.2022. Hence,
this petition.
3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and perused
the material on record. As per the allegations made in the
impugned FIR, the respondent No.2-wife was kept well by the
petitioners at her matrimonial home for a period of about one
year after the marriage. It is alleged that thereafter the
petitioners tortured her physically and mentally for dowry and
for doing a job. The petitioner No.1-husband appears to have
gone to Ludhiana, Punjab and stayed there for about two
months leaving behind the respondent No.2-wife and on
27.08.2016, the petitioner No.2-mother in law had compelled
respondent No.2 to leave the matrimonial house. Prima facie,
from the allegations made in the FIR, it cannot be said that no
offence has been made out against the petitioners and both the
Courts below have rightly rejected the discharge application
preferred by the petitioners.
R/SCR.A/4971/2022 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2023
4. In the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of
this Court and relied upon by learned advocate for the
petitioners in the case of Harshad Dolatram Geariya v.
Heenaben Harshadbhai Geariya, absolutely general and vague
allegations were made in the FIR therein and therefore, in
exercise of powers u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., the Court had quashed the
FIR. However, in the present case, specific allegations have
been made in the impugned FIR and therefore, the said
decision will not be applicable to the present case.
5. This Court is in complete agreement with the concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts below and hence, finds
no reasons to entertain this petition.
6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
(SAMIR J. DAVE, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
