Allowed

Shaileshbhai Chematiyabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC17 Dec 2018CR.MA/465/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat quashed FIR No. CR.NO. I-22 of 2013 alleging offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 of IPC for providing false information in a compassionate appointment application. The court allowed the criminal miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. CR.NO. I-22 of 2013 was quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.

Shaileshbhai Chematiyabhai Gamit Vs State of Gujarat — Gujarat HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

R/CR.MA/18733/2013 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 18733 of 2013 With

¶4

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 465 of 2014

¶5

================================================================ SEVANTIBEN W/O CHEMATIYABHAI CHHAGANBHAI GAMIT

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2 MS CM SHAH, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶10

RULE SERVED BY DS(65) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI

¶13

Date : 17/12/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

Both these petitions arise out of the same FIR being CR.NO. I- 22 of 2013 registered with Ukai Police Station for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 of IPC .

¶16

It appears that the FIR was lodged at the instance of the respondent No. 2 Original complainant on 31.08.2013 wherein it was alleged that the applicant no. 1 Sevantiben Chematiyabhai Gamit and applicant no. 2 Saruben Chematiyabhai Gamit of Criminal Misc. Application 18733 of 2013 and the applicant Shaileshbhai Chematiyabhai Gamit of the other Criminal Misc. Application No. 465 of 2014 in collusion with each other gave false information to the GSECL Company, Thermal Power Station, Ukai for obtaining the appointment of the applicant Saruben on compassionate grounds, after the death of their father Chematiyabhai Gamit. It was further alleged that though the brother of the said Saruben i.e. Shaileshbhai

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

R/CR.MA/18733/2013 ORDER

¶19

was serving as teacher in a primary school, it was stated by the applicant Saruben in her application seeking appointment that her brother was an agricultural labourer. The said complaint was registered at the Ukai Police Station as CR.NO. I-22 of 2013 for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 of IPC.

¶20

It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Modi for the applicants in both the petitions that the complainant is RTI activist and had filed false complaint with a view to extract money from the applicants. He further submitted that the applicant Saruben had already resigned from the said company prior to filing of the complaint and that at no point of time the company had raised any issue with regard to the filing of the false information by the applicant. Nobody appears for the respondent No. 2 complainant though duly served.

¶21

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocate Mr. Modi appearing for the applicant and to the allegations made in the complaint, it appears that the complainant had filed the complaint after obtaining the information under RTI Act. There is nothing on record to show that the company i.e. GSECL Thermal Power Station had ever doubted the information submitted by the applicant Saruben. From the copy of the letter annexed at Annexure B, it appears that the said Saruben had already tendered her resignation on 27.06.2013 on personal grounds i.e. prior to filing of the complaint by respondent No. 2 on 30.08.2013. The complaint therefore appears to have been filed with malicious intention, and even otherwise the complaint taken on its face value did not constitute the offences as alleged.

¶22

In that view of the matter, the FIR being No. CR.NO. I-22

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

R/CR.MA/18733/2013 ORDER

¶25

deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed and set aside. Both the applications are allowed accordingly.

¶26

Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.

¶27

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)

¶28

SINDHU NAIR

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Shaileshbhai Chematiyabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaileshbhai Chematiyabhai Gamit 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babubhai Ramjibhai Gajera Vs State of Gujarat

Dharmesh @ Luvana Vanmalidasa Thakkar Vs State of Gujarat

Dharmesh @ Luvana Vanmalidas Thakkar Vs State of Gujarat

Khatimhusen Mustakali Khetani Vs State of Gujarat

Bharatji Umedji Thakore Vs State of Gujarat

Sevantiben W/O Chematiyabhai Chhaganbhai Gamit Vs State of Gujarat