Allowed

Solanki (Chamar) Ratilal Jagabhai v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC3 Dec 2013CR.MA/8145/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application, the High Court of Gujarat quashed the proceedings under Section 97 CrPC regarding illegal take-away of a daughter following her statement of voluntary residence and the complainant's concession of settlement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Application no. 118/2009 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C. Khambhaliya is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.

Solanki (Chamar) Ratilal Jagabhai Vs State of Gujarat — Domestic Violence | Gujarat HC (2013)

¶1

R/CR.MA/8145/2009 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8145 of 2009

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

¶6

================================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶10

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶12

================================================================

¶13

SOLANKI (CHAMAR) RATILAL JAGABHAI....Applicant(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)

¶16

================================================================

¶17

Appearance:

¶18

MR ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RAJESH K SAVJANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR NIRAJ B SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶19

================================================================

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

¶21

Date : 03/12/2013

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Page 1 of 4

¶24

R/CR.MA/8145/2009 JUDGMENT

¶25

1. I have heard Mr. A.P.Shah, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Niraj Soni, learned APP appearing for respondent no. 1 State and Mr. R.K.Savjani, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶26

2. The present application is filed to challenge the proceedings initiated by respondent no. 2 under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the applicant for the custody of Solanki Jasodaben Ratilal, who is the daughter of the applicant. It appears from the order dated 17/7/2009 that said Jasodaben was produced before this Court and her wish was ascertained in the chamber. She stated that she was willingly residing with her parents and was not unlawfully confined as alleged in the complaint.

¶27

3. Mr. R.K.Savjani, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, at whose instance proceedings under section 97 of the Code were initiated, has stated that in view of the statement made by Solanki Jasodaben Ratilal before this Court on 17/7/2009, he does not propose to further prosecute his complaint and he has no objection if the complaint Annexure - “A” being Criminal Misc. Application no. 118/2009 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Khambhaliya is quashed and set aside.

¶28

4. The dispute involved in this petition is

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

R/CR.MA/8145/2009 JUDGMENT

¶31

essentially between the two private individuals
and the society at large is not affected by the
criminal complaint filed by respondent no. 2. As
Jasodaben Solanki has stated on her own volition
before this Court that she was residing with her
parents and was not unlawfully confined, learned
counsel for respondent no. 2 has rightly conceded
before this Court that nothing remains in the
complaint initiated by respondent no. 2. The
Honourable Supreme Court has also in recent
judgements i.e. in case of (i) Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012)
10 SCC 303; (ii) Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Ors
Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr reported in 2013
(4) SCC 58 has expounded the proposition that if
the dispute is essentially between two
individuals and society at large is not affected
by the criminal complaint and when the parties
haveamicablysettledtheirdisputes/
differences, it would be fruitless to allow the
criminal proceedings to continue, which would
amount to abuse of process of law.

¶32

5. Hence, considering the totality of the facts of the present case, the present application deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, it is hereby allowed. Criminal Misc. Application no. 118/2009 pending before the Court of J.M.F.C., Khambhaliya is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No costs.

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

R/CR.MA/8145/2009 JUDGMENT

¶35

(A.G.URAIZEE,J)

¶36

*asma

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Solanki (Chamar) Ratilal Jagabhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solanki (Chamar) Ratilal Jagabhai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmedabad District Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs Deepali Mahila Gruh Udhyog Audhyogik Sahakari Mandli Ltd.

Ahmedabad District Co. Op Bank Ltd. Vs Deepali Mahila Gruh Udhyog Audhyogik Sahkari Mandli Ltd.

Vanshraj Rikhavdas Bhansali Partner-Sunshine Multi Forms Vs State of Gujarat

Pamar Somabhai Chaturbhai Vs State of Gujarat

Ashok Chunilal Joshi Vs State of Gujarat

Sameer Mehmoodbhai Rangrez Vs State of Gujarat