Gujarat High Court
Manishaben Khushalbhai Rathod vs Parulben Rameshbhai Parmar on 27 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1020/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1020 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MANISHABEN KHUSHALBHAI RATHOD
Versus
PARULBEN RAMESHBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 27/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. With consent of learned advocates for both the
parties, the present application is taken for final hearing.
2. By way of present revision application preferred
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'
for short) challenges the order dated 6.8.2022 passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1020/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad
(Rural) at Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to 'the Sessions
Court' for short), below Exh-4 in Sessions Case No. 231 of
2021, whereby the learned Sessions Court allowed the
application of the respondent and discharged the
respondent-accused from the offence punishable under
Section 376(1), 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present revision
application is that the applicant is the original complainant
who registered the First Information Report against
accused Vijaybhai Rameshbhai Parmar as the main
accused. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the respondents' for short) are arraigned as
accused in the same First Information Report being C.R.
No. 11192015210547 of 2021 on 11.8.2021 filed before
Changodar Police Station, District: Ahmedabad as abettor
to the crime. The main allegations of the offence is against
the accused Vijaybhai Rameshbhai Parmar, wherein it is
alleged that the said accused had committed the offence
punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1020/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
4. Pursuant to the registration of the First Information
Report, charge-sheet came to be filed and subsequent to
the filing of the charge-sheet, case came to be committed
before the learned Sessions Court being Sessions Case
No.231 of 2021. The respondents preferred an application
below Exh-4 before the learned Sessions Court for
discharge from the charges levelled against them. The
application came to be preferred under Section 227 of the
Code mainly on the ground that there is no role of the
respondent in the offence which can be borne out from
charge-sheet. It was further averred by the respondent
that the complainant- present applicant had decided to
get married with the accused Vijaybhai Rameshbhai
Parmar. Thereafter, the alleged offence has been
committed which is not at the place of the respondent.
There is no role of the respondent in the alleged offence.
Therefore, they were liable to be discharged.
5. Pursuant to discharge application under Section 227
of the Code preferred by the respondent below Exh-4, the
applicant appeared before the learned Sessions Court and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1020/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
filed objections below Exh-9 primarily contending that
there is documentary evidence on record qua the role of
respondents and the same needs to be tested before the
learned Sessions Court prior to deciding the discharge
application. In wake of such submissions, it was prayed to
reject the discharge application.
6. The learned Sessions Court, after hearing both the
parties and perusing the material on record, was pleased
to allow the discharge application vide order dated
6.8.2022 and discharged the respondents, mainly on the
ground that accused No.1 i.e. Vijaybhai refused to marry
with the complainant i.e. the applicant herein and in the
interregnum had committed the offence under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code. There was no material
against the respondent and, therefore, by way of
impugned order, the respondents came to be discharged.
7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2022, the
present revision application is sought.
8. The Court has heard Mr. Vijay Nangesh, learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1020/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
advocate for the applicant and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent.
Though notice was served, no one appeared for
respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Vijay Nangesh, learned
advocate for the applicant that the impugned order is
passed mainly on the ground that there is no prima-facie
case made out against the respondents who happen to be
the relatives of the original accused i.e. Vijaybhai.
Respondent No.1 is the mother of Vijaybhai, whereas
respondent No.2 is brother of the respondent and
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are other relatives of Vijaybhai,
who is the original accused. It was further submitted by
Mr. Nangesh that pursuant to the interim relief granted to
the present respondent, the case being Sessions Case No.
231 of 2021 came to be conducted qua Vijaybhai and the
same came to be disposed of by way judgment and order
dated 15.5.2024, whereby accused No.1 Vijaybhai came to
be convicted for the offence under Section 376. However,
as far as the role of the present applicant is concerned,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1020/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
the same can be said from the fact that during the love
affair, the applicant had constantly met the respondents
being relatives of original accused Vijaybhai. It was further
contended by Mr. Nangesh, pursuant to the incident of
376 the applicant had tried to commit suicide by taking
pills and there was a dying declaration recorded by
Executive Magistrate on 11.8. 2022, wherein she has
named the respondents. It was further contended that
though it may be true that the main case of the Section
376 is against the accused No.1, but the present
respondents are abettor and, therefore, they are liable to
be punished with the main offence. In the First Information
Report, there is a detailed role of each and every
respondent and, therefore, the respondents ought not to
have been discharged where it is well settled law that if
there is only case beyond reasonable doubt then only the
accused can be discharged. In the present case, there are
documentary and prima-facie evidence against the
respondents and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in
law. In wake of such submissions, Mr. Nangesh has prayed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1020/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
to consider the case of the applicant and grant the prayers
as prayed in the present revision application.
10. Having heard Mr. Nangesh, learned advocate for the
applicant as well as material placed on record and on
perusal of the First Information Report, it is not in dispute
that the only allegations against the present respondents
as being abettor to the main accused i.e. Vijaybhai. If the
charge-sheet is perused carefully and the statement of
present applicants recorded on 11.8.2021 is considered
carefully, then it comes on record that pursuant to the
relationship of the present applicant and Vijaybhai, it can
be seen that certain objections were raised by respondent
No.1. Pursuant thereto, the main accused i.e. Vijaybhai
had left the house of the respondent and had gone with
the applicant at her house. It was at that place the
allegation of 376(1) are made against the applicant i.e.
Vijaybhai. From the statement of the applicant herself, it
can be inferred that there is no role played by the present
respondent even as a abettor to the incidents in question.
In wake of statement itself as well as material on record,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1020/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2025
undefined
no infirmity can be drawn by the order passed by the
learned Sessions Court. That being the case, the present
application is devoid of merits and no infirmity can be
passed to the order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
Resultantly, the present revision application is
dismissed as devoid of merits. Rule is discharged.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE
