Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Bachubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 23 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1737/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1737 of 2017
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI BACHUBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHENDRA U VORA(3034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 23/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
Though advocate notice is served, the respondent No.2 has
chosen not to appear.
The main contention of Learned advocate for the
petitioner is that main accused are acquitted by the learned
Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.4 of 2016. He tendered
copy of the judgment, which is taken on record. Moreover, he
submits that the prosecution has filed report u/s 169 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioner
as no offence was found against him. Upon such submission,
Learned advocate for the petitioner prays to allow this
petition.
Per contra, learned APP prays to pass necessary orders
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1737/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
in the given facts and circumstances.
It is undisputed that main accused are acquitted by the
learned Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.4 of 2016 vide
judgment and order dated 24.1.2020. Moreover, the
prosecution has filed report u/s 169 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioner as no offence was
found against him. But for no reason, or rather becoming
nontechnical, both the learned courts below have rejected
said report, perhaps without understanding the purport of
section 169 of the Code. The report tendered by learned 4 th
Addl. Sessions Judge, Surendranagar is taken on record.
The role played by the present petitioner is limited to
abort the child being a result of rape and thereby, has caused
disappearance of the evidence. Since the victim has turned
hostile in the deposition recorded at Exh.62 and the
investigating officer has categorically admitted that there is
no evidence against the petitioner, this Court is of the
considered opinion that conducting trial against the petitioner
is a futile exercise.
Resultantly, present petition is allowed. Impugned
judgement and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Surendranagar rejecting Criminal Revision
Application No.05/2016 filed by the petitioner and in turn
upholding the order dated 04.01.2016 passed by learned
Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Lakhtar rejecting the report of the investigating Officer dated
23.12.2015 seeking deletion of the name of the petitioner as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1737/2017 ORDER DATED: 23/07/2025
undefined
accused as well as Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code from
the FIR registered as CR.No.I- 21/2015 under sections 376,
313, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code with Lakhtar
Police Station, District Surendranagar are hereby quashed
and set aside.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
