Dismissed

Nimesh Dineshchandra Desai v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC13 Dec 2018CR.MA/3093/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed applicants accused 4 and 5 to file a criminal miscellaneous application seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, and 114 of the IPC. The court examined the specific allegations against the applicants and the status of the charge-sheet before deciding on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing the FIR was dismissed as the petition was found to be devoid of merits.

Nimesh Dineshchandra Desai Vs State of Gujarat — Quashing and FIR | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

R/CR.MA/3093/2012 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3093 of 2012

¶4

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

¶5

NIMESH DINESHCHANDRA DESAI

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

================================================================ Appearance:

¶9

MS PRAGATI DWIVEDI FOR NISARG TRIVEDI for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2

¶10

MR N R KOYANI FOR MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2

¶11

MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶14

Date : 13/12/2018

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

The present application has been filed by the applicants who are the accused Nos. 4 and 5 for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No. I- 96 of 2012 registered with Vastrapur Police Station against the applicants and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498(a), 323, 504, 506 and 114 of the IPC.

¶17

The applicants happen to be the brother-in-law and sister-inlaw of the respondent No. 2-Complainant. The respondent No. 2 had lodged an FIR against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the present applicants who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent, making allegations with regard to the cruelty meted out to the said respondent No.2 after her marriage with the accused No. 1 Marmik Dineshbhai Desai. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Ms. Pragati Dwivedi for the applicants that the allegations made in the complaint against the present applicants are of very general nature and merely because he matrimonial dispute

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

R/CR.MA/3093/2012 ORDER

¶20

exists between the respondent No. 2 and her husband, the entire family should not be dragged into the litigation. She also relied on the decision of this Court in the case Natubhai Somabhai Rohit and Others versus State of Gujarat and Another in Criminal Misc. Application No. 20679 of 2013 to submit that in similar nature of allegations the Court had quashed the FIR. She also relied upon the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. versus State Department of Home and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018 to submit that the petition filed for quashing the FIR would be maintainable though the charge-sheet is already filed.

¶21

However, the learned APP Ms. Krina Calla submitted that the investigating officer, after carrying out the investigation has submitted the charge-sheet against all accused including the present applicants is already filed in which the prima facie involvement of the applicants in the alleged offences is shown, and hence the Court should not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants.

¶22

Learned Advocate Mr. Koyani for Mr. Joshi appearing for the respondent No. 2 also has supported the submissions of learned APP.

¶23

There cannot be any disagreement to the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Advocate Ms. Pragati Dwivedi for the applicants to the effect that the application under Section 482 would be maintainable even after the filing of the chargesheet, however in the said judgment, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the unless the prosecution is mala fide, untenable and solely intended to harass the appellants, the High Court should not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. At this juncture, beneficial reference of the decision in the

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

R/CR.MA/3093/2012 ORDER

¶26

case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 5 (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 be made, which has been followed in catena of decisions.

¶27

Considering the nature of allegations made in the complaint by the respondent No. 2, and also the specific allegations made against the present applicants, the Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., more particularly when the charge-sheet has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer in the case.

¶28

In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.

¶29

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)

¶30

SINDHU NAIR

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Nimesh Dineshchandra Desai v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimesh Dineshchandra Desai 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

Shyam Sundar Sharma Vs State of Gujarat

Takhatsinh Chagansinh Baria Vs State of Gujarat

Merubha @ Dilawarkhan Kesarkhan Rathod Vs State of Gujarat

Payal Ankur Talavia D/O Manilal G Damor Vs Ankur Dhirubhai Talavia

Shibani Deepak Anklesaria Vs Deepak Asvin Anklesaria

Diptiben P Gandhi Vs State of Gujarat